Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)
"Adam M. Costello" <[email protected]> Fri, 31 Oct 2003 08:52:29 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imaa |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Sam Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm suggesting that email addresses should be at least as useable as > telephone numbers. If you want email addresses to be at least as usable as telephone numbers, don't you need to restrict them to just the digits? Certainly the number of people who can cope with digits exceeds the number of people who can cope with Latin letters. If ASCII email addresses are better than non-ASCII email addresses, would numeric email addresses be even better still? Is it unfortunate that non-digits were ever allowed in domain names and local parts in the first place? Did allowing ASCII letters make email addresses less usable than they otherwise would have been? Or did allowing ASCII letters make email addresses more usable? Maybe it's a tradeoff between different kinds of usability. Would allowing even more characters make email addresses even less usable, or even more usable? Is the set of ASCII letters and digits the optimal point between the extremes? If so, why? AMC P.S. We can't quite limit email addresses to just the digits, because there has to be an at-sign, and scalable administration demands dots in the domain name, and the TLD needs to contain a non-digit to avoid being confused with an IP address, so the closest we can come might be something like this: [email protected]