Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, John Cowan wrote:
> All email addresses will continue to have an ASCII *representation*, which
> will not, for most people, have mnemonic value.

Is that a given as one of the requirements?  If so, that greatly
constrains the solution set.  I happen to think that that is a desirable
constraint; but I have certainly not heard any definite hum of concensus
that this shall be a requirement.

Talk about using alternate forms of "@" (and the like) doesn't sound like
a hum to me.

> > If so, how many email addresses will a diplomat (or any other individual
> > engaged in multinational business) need?
> That's like asking how many languages should appear on your business card.
> As many as the different kinds of people with whom you habitually interact.

That is not a satisfactory answer to the question.

I am engaged in software support.  I habitually interact with people from
around the planet.  Any proposal, that states that someone like me must
maintain hundreds (if not thousands) of email addresses, is a non-starter.

It is obvious (at least to me) that there is a constraint that prevents
such an outcome.  What is that constraint?

> No address is quite domestic-only, though it may be a meaningless jumble
> to people who are interacting with the ASCII representation.

Again, that assumes a requirement that (as far as I can tell) has not been
made.

If that truly is the requirement, we can have a very short meeting; just
sufficient to say "just use UTF-7" (or any other politically correct
rendering of the day), get the hum, and go home.

Something tells me that isn't going to happen.  :-)

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.