Stefan Persson wrote:
> Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > This kind of solution
> > was driven mainly by the issue of the traditional chinese vs.
> > simplified chinese problem, but that approach applies to cases
> > like <dotless i, dot-above> too.
>
> Do you mean that people were afraid that someone would
> register e.g. äå.com, while someone else would register äå.com?
Assuming that those are SC and TC for the same reading,
yes. Worse, those worrying argued that more than 2^n IDNs,
where n is the number of CJK characters in the intended name
would be needed for each intended name (ignoring that SC
and TC don't usually mix).
Peter Kirk wrote:
> If the Swedish registry allows all the letters used in Swedish and Sami,
> and far eastern registries allow Chinese characters, the Turkish and
> Azerbaijani registries should allow, and be allowed to allow, all the
> letters of the alphabets of their national languages.
Note that à (sharp s) casefolds to ss, and Š(long s) casefolds to s. So
"straÃe", "straÅse", and "strasse" also both map to the same ("strasse")
subname.
John Cowan wrote:
> > Yes. And as it happens, dotless-i case-*folds* to (soft)dotted-i,
> > so you cannot register an IDN that after "nameprep" has a dotless-i
> > in it, since that name isn't correctly "nameprepped".
>
> What is the source of this claim? The tables in RFC 3454 (stringprep)
> do not mention dotless-i, and neither does RFC 3491.
Aha, a change that escaped me. (It used to be folded as described above.)
My apologies.
/kent k
