VERBATIM means "word for word". LITERATIM is "letter by letter". This is precisely the essence of the problem - you hear a domain name, and spell it exactly as you hear it, and it should be found.
Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 8:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [idn] A question... > > > In a message dated 2002-02-07 20:32:44 Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > The user behavior education about domain names should be > that domain > > names are identifier, not names. They should enter into the > computer > > exactly as they seen it or reference it. > > Gee, what a concept. Just what we've been saying all along. > > You know what happens today when someone tries to type in a > misspelled domain > name or e-mail address, or a case-sensitive URL using the > wrong case? It > fails. The user gets a 404, or his mail bounces or > something. Then he says, > "Aw, shucks" (or something stronger) and types the identifier > again, this > time EXACTLY as he was told to, and the web page appears or > the mail gets > sent. And the user eventually learns when it is important to be > case-sensitive and when it is not so important. > > The same, exact thing will happen with Han logographs. If # > and & are TC and > SC characters (respectively) that have the same meaning, and > the user types # > when he should have typed & (or vice versa), under the > proposed IDN system > the name will not match. The user will get a 404, mutter > "aw, shucks," and > type it again, VERBATIM, and the page will appear. And the > user will learn > that it is important to type the EXACT characters that appear > on the business > card, or billboard, or wherever the name came from. > > Yes, I know TC and SC pairs are pronounced the same, so > *speaking* a CJK > domain name would not guarantee that the listener would be > able to type it > with the correct combination of TC and/or SC characters. > Guess what? This > too is already true with ASCII. > > Did you know there is a very large number called a "googol"? > I believe it's > 10 to the 600th power, or something like that. I first heard > about that > number decades ago. Now we are in the Web age, and there is > an important and > powerful search engine called "Google." (Note the different > spelling.) If I > had never heard of Google the search engine, and somebody > told me to type it > in, I probably would start with my prior knowledge of this > identically > pronounced word, and type "www.googol.com." Of course, it > would fail (or > maybe it would take me to a totally different site). I would > then inquire, > and the person would apologize (maybe) and tell me the ONE > TRUE correct > spelling. > > Did you notice what happened? More to the point, did you notice what > *didn't* happen? Nobody died. No vast fortunes were made or > lost. Nobody > lost any business because, for a brief moment, there was some > confusion about > how to spell a domain name. The problem was solved easily > and quickly. > > Now, I would like someone to explain to me why this won't > work for CJK. Use > reason and logic, not emotion. Use realistic (not hyper-inflated) > probabilities. Do not patronize me by simply stating, "Well, CJK is > different" unless you can explain what is different in THIS > case. And do not > send me 50 identically worded responses. > > -Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California > (address will soon change to dewell at adelphia dot net) > > >
