Kenneth Whistler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes. When discussion gets to the level of arguing over names of > something, it generally means the technical issues are either > resolved or unresolvable.
Or the combatants aren't focusing their efforts in the right place. But I don't think that's what's happening here. The technical issues are resolved and the combatants have some time to deal with less pressing concerns. > In this case, "fixing" the name punycode isn't worth the effort. > (By the way, I don't like it either.) It can just stay punycode > in the RFC. Feel free to market it however you want, but end users > shouldn't see or hear about it, anyway, since it is just > one step in the whole algorithm for IDNA. As I said. Most users will never hear the term (just as they don't currently hear terms like "SMTP"), and propeller-heads already know that it is pointless to argue over the aesthetics or technical precision of names for technologies. They're just names. > I don't think that "Genicode" is any improvement. In fact, if > anything, I would prefer just ACE: Adam Costello Encoding. ;-) I thought ACE-Z would have been just fine to refer to Adam's specific algorithm, as opposed to just plain ACE which refers to the broad concept of an ASCII-Compatible Encoding. BTW, probably 99% of English speakers (including this one) would pronounce Genicode as 'jen-ih-kod. It's generally not a good sign when you invent a name for something and then have to tell people how to pronounce it. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
