[vip] Suggested meta-questions to think about

[Vladimir Shadrunov]

Are we sure we really need to draw the lines as to what a variant is and
what a variant isn't?

Why can't we just say that a variant is whatever the registry wants to be a
variant? The registry only needs to define a unique way of finding out
whether String1 is indeed a variant of String2 or not.

For example, on the Top Level a registry could declare String1 and String2
to be variants, and if .String1 and .String2 get delegated pursuant to
then-current ICANN TLD program, then so be it.

On the Second Level the registry might wish to declare that, for example:
- for Chinese script the variants for traditional characters are
corresponding simplified charaters
- for Cyrillic script Е is a variant for Ё with no other variant
relationships between characters
etc.

The rest is up to the linguistic community. In fact, the work is already
under way. There are RFCs for Chinese and for Cyrillic script that define at
least some guidelines regarding similarity and equivalence of characters.
The registry may decide to use these RFCs or even to use something else.

What we need to consider in my opinion are the properties of these
relationships. For example are we fine that variant relationships may be
asymmetric? I. e. Е is a variant for Ё, but not vice versa.

If you think I am wrong please don't hesitate to say.

Best regards,
Vladimir Shadrunov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/vip/attachments/20110624/7a4c2fe2/attachment.html