--On Sunday, November 2, 2025 15:29 +0000 Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2025, at 10:17, Pete Resnick > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> [Hatless] >> >> I'll give an even more likely example than John's: If some kind >> person at Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. gave their company name in >> Han characters as "华为技术有限公司", though I would find >> a Latin script equivalent of the Pinyin version including tone >> marks, "Huáwéi Jìshù Yǒuxiàn Gōngsī" helpful, because I >> like getting the pronunciation right, I imagine most people would >> not. I think ASCII-only (and perhaps English translation) is >> really what we're looking for. > > Do you want a must-be-ASCII policy just for the company name, or > also for author names? > > [author hat] > > Specific wording for the draft would be preferred over examples. I don't know if we are back to "ASCII only" in the "interpretation string, and can't tell Pete's preference from his example. If we are going that way, I'll leave to to others to propose text. If, instead, we don't believe an ASCII restriction there is appropriate (with Pete's example serving as an illustration of why some non-ASCII characters may be needed if a phonetic interpretation is intended, I believe fairly specific wording on the two separate issues here, with two variations on one of them, has already been proposed: (1) Martin's suggestion to eliminate the distinction between personal names and company/geographic names. The differences are not as great as the document implies and Pete's example shows. If his comments were not specific enough, that could be done by dropping the second paragraph of 3.1 and inserting ", or associated company or geographic names," after the first occurrence of "names" in the first sentence of 3.1, although I think you can come up with better ways to accomplish that. (2) Martin's suggestion was to replace "ASCII' with "Latin script". Pete's example illustrates, IMO, the importance of that. In the part of my note Pete did not quote, II expressed some concern about that because "Latin script" may be over-broad and allow reasonable people, acting in good faith to create far more problematic strings than the use of diacritical markings as tone marks that Pete suggested. So, as a variation on "Latin script", my note suggested several ways to narrow that range of characters, either specifically or by explicitly delegating authority to limit the characters used to the RPC, a delegation that phrases like "policy should be that authors' preferences for display of their names be honored" seem to negate and, while "included at the discretion of the author and the RPC" give the RPC authority over whether the interpretations should be included or not, they also seen to remove RPC discretion over what those interpretations should be (and what characters are allowed in them) if the decision is made to include them.. john -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
