> -----Original Message----- > From: "Martin v. L�wis" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Michel Suignard wrote: > > I have seen European standard bodies spending forests of > > paper to try > > to establish these language tables, but there have never been an > > authoritative version because simply you can't. > > Why do you say that? DENIC is using an authorative list for .DE, see > > http://www.denic.de/de/domains/idns/liste.html >
This is not a language table, it is basically all IDN allowable Latin characters from Unicode block 0000-007F and 0100-017F. This covers many European languages. As long as you don't call it a language table we may be in agreement. Note btw that by doing this they are excluding Welsh and Irish Gaelic which needs Latin characters in the 1Exx range. And obviously all Latin letters from the Extended-B are not included, which is excluding de facto many European minorities. > > It is not a bad idea to have language tables to filter, but > you have > > to allow exception for the reasons exposed above. > > No, you don't. The exception you mention (H�agen-Dazs) is > already covered in the list of characters. It might be that > some company cannot use its logo as a domain name - tough > luck. There might not even be a Unicode character for the > logo. They will find a solution, using some sort of > transliteration. If enough users complain that they want a > certain, say, Greek character to be available in the .de > zone, DENIC might reconsider. However, I very much doubt this > will ever happen. For the .de zone, the DENIC list of > characters covers all actual needs. It may be that artificial > needs are not covered, but I could not care less. > See above, there are quite a few European languages that need IDN allowed Latin characters above 017F. It is my belief that registry policies should be based on scripts, not subset because you are likely to miss some characters. I am not advocating for script mix as you may hint. I am not saying either that the the DENIC list is bad. It is in fact reasonable (with the minor caveat expressed above), but it is by no mean a German language table or even an European language table. > It is a very good idea to be more restrictive at the > beginning, and the gradually become less restrictive. This is > how the DNS started out - allowing only ASCII letters. With > IDNA, it is possible to widen this, but that does not mean > you cannot have a policy more restrictive than "full Unicode". I never said that. I am just saying that subsetting Unicode script per language won't work. You are typically better off allowing all characters from a given script (within the IDN repertoire constraint and rules of course). By script I mean the script property as defined by Unicode. > > Regards, > Martin Regards, Michel
