Subject: Re: [idn] WG Update

From: Kenneth Whistler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:12:15 -0700 (PDT)

Liana said:

>  If nameprep remains as it is, the other languages but 
> Latin, Greek, Cyrillic and Armenian,

These are not *languages* but *scripts*. 

> have to go through
>  another level of filtering.  This creates not only fair treatment
>  issue,

Huh? Are you suggesting that it is unfair that other scripts
which don't have case differences don't have to have those
nonexistent case differences folded together? Are you suggesting,
say, that Hebrew should introduce case differences so they can
be fairly folded away? Or that if Latin, Greek, Cyrillic,
and Armenian get to fold away their case differences that
users of every other script should be given a chance to fold
*some* distinction away, to be "fair", even if the distinction
in question has nothing to do with the domain name case folding
that is being grandfathered in for backwards compatibility?

> but also posts look-alike character consistency 
>  treatment problem.

On what basis do you make this claim?
  
> 
> Within the current nameprep spec first, take Armenian letter 
> "n", 

There is no Armenian letter "n". There is an Armenian letter NOW
for the /n/ sound...

> which is identical to Latin "n", they are identical, 

...but it is not identical to Latin "n". What are you going
on about?

> but 
> we don't have a way to treat this cross scripted look-alike
> in nameprep flat mapping.

It isn't a look-alike in the first place.

> 
> If we treate this Armenian case in two levels, how shall we 
> do it?  Are there any differences the user will see? 

Yes. Armenian is visually completely distinct from Latin.
That is obvious.

--Ken