Re: Genicode (read as Genie-code) vs Punycode

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