Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)

At 13:34 03/02/28 -0500, tedd wrote:

[reordered]

>What about char sets that are not language specific, like mathematical 
>symbols? The Unicode character database does provide many char sets that 
>are not language specific -- look at symbol fonts and even dingbats for 
>sake of argument.
>
>Shouldn't Greeks and Japanese (as well as everyone else) have easy and 
>equal access to those characters -- and to all others char sets in the 
>Unicode database as well? Designing things on a language specific basis 
>looks like a "no matter how many times you cut it, it's still too short" 
>type of thing.

Sorry for having created confusion by maybe stating my opinion in a
somewhat simplified fashion. Of course, if we would go so far
as to create different designs for Greek and Japanese, and so on,
we would end up in deep chaos. The idea is just that the system
is designed so that everybody can easily deal with the characters
they mostly use. If somebody is familiar with math symbols and
wants to use them for mail addresses (I personally doubt that
there will be much such use, but that's not the issue), then
they should be able to just use them, without having to go
through an ACE.

Regards,    Martin.



>>At 00:00 03/02/28 +0000, Claus Faerber wrote:
>>
>>>Someone who does not know the Greek language and can't type Greek
>>>characters might actually prefer entering xn--mxa (which is Nameprep and
>>>Punycode of a single alpha); it's even easier than using ISO 14755 for
>>>longer name components.
>>
>>Somebody who doesn't know Greek probably doesn't care to type Greek
>>at all. I guess we should design IMAs so that Greek IMAs work best
>>for Greeks, and Japanese IMAs work best for Japanese, and so on.
>>Designing IMAs so that Greek IMAs work best for Japanese and Japanese
>>IMAs work best for Greeks doesn't make sense.
>>
>>Regards,    Martin.