I think I agree with Brian but, nothing the discussion about the meaning of "Latin script", if we are not willing to spell out what that might mean, I would change his statement to something like "provide an alternative using well-known Latin script characters" and hope no one asks for a definition of "well-known". That also needs to come with a far more explicit statement about the RPC being the final authority.
I also think that, if we did that, and especially given the very blurry boundary we've discussed about differences between names of individuals and names of companies, Brian's "as little as possible" involves drastically shortening Section 3. While it probably needs some tweaking in the light of more recent discussions, I've already supplied suggested text specifications for doing that. john --On Tuesday, November 4, 2025 12:50 +1300 Brian Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > IMO this discussion shows that we probably should not attempt to > deal with tricky I18N issues in an RSWG document. The less we say > beyond "provide a Latin script alternative" the better. > > (via tiny screen & keyboard) > Regards, > Brian Carpenter > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2025, 12:27 Paul Hoffman, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> [author's hat on] >> >> Is this discussion about some suggested text for the draft that I >> missed? If not, is it leading towards suggested text for which >> there might be rough consensus? All I'm seeing are examples of >> things that the RPC has seen and might see in the future, but I >> could have missed the suggested text for the draft. >> >> I don't want to curtail the discussion, but this is a WG with a >> draft that is supposed to move forward, and I'm on the hook for >> that movement. >> >> --Paul Hoffman >> >> -- >> rswg mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
