Re: Hanb in domain labels

FWIW, Bopomofo is not permitted as part of the DNS root zone. You can't 
register a top level domain name with it, as you can with Han or Kana.

A./

On 8/16/2024 9:23 AM, Bill Poser via Unicode wrote:
> The use of bopomofo in Chinese is not parallel to the use of kana in 
> Japanese. Whereas kana are routinely mixed with kanji in Japanese, 
> with, e.g., a verb stem written in kanji and the suffixes written in 
> kana, and Japanese can be written entirely in kana (e.g. by young 
> children), bopomofo does not appear in ordinary Chinese text. It is an 
> ancillary system, used, e.g., to give the pronunciation of Chinese 
> characters and is a commonly available input method. That doesn't 
> guarantee that it doesn't occur in email addresses, though I don't 
> recall seeing it. I'm not sure if it is even permitted in the legal 
> name of a company.
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 7:32 AM Martin J. Dürst via Unicode 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     Hello Henri,
>
>     I don't know about Chinese and Bopomofo, but for Japanese, there
>     surely
>     are e.g. company names that contain both Kana and Kanji. And company
>     names are one (although of course not the only) use case for
>     domain names.
>
>     I'm cc'ing Arnt, who is one of the authors of
>     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gulbrandsen-smtputf8-nice-addresses-00.html,
>
>     which is about email addresses (quite a bit related to domain
>     names) and
>     discusses Chinese quite a bit (although it doesn't mention Bopomofo).
>
>     Regards,   Martin.
>
>     P.S.: draft-gulbrandsen-smtputf8-nice-addresses-00.html is in my view
>     still in a very early stage; I have read through it but still have to
>     write up my comments.
>
>     On 2024-08-15 18:08, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote:
>     > UTS #39 is commonly used as the baseline for detecting IDN
>     spoofs, and UTS
>     > #39 explicitly allows combining Han and Bopomofo. Considering
>     that ㄚ looks
>     > confusable with 丫 and ㄠ looks confusable with 幺, I’m wondering
>     if it’s
>     > appropriate to explicitly allow this combination in the spoof
>     detection
>     > context. Is combining Han and Bopomofo in one domain label
>     something that
>     > occurs commonly enough in domains that aren’t intended to be
>     spoofs for it
>     > being necessary not to treat the script combination as
>     triggering spoof
>     > detection in the domain name context?
>     >
>