John C Klensin scripsit:
> I suppose there are always exceptions. In particular, the
> recommendations of RFC 3743 are about tables of characters, not
> dictionary lookup.
I know that -- I did read 3743 first. But in that case, whatever did
you mean by "ICANN has created a recommendation [...] that languages
not be mixed within a label"?
> If, however, a domain decided to adopt a
> canonical dictionary and lookup in it as a registration
> criterion, that rule would be perfectly enforceable.
Certainly. But that is not the same as saying "languages [SHOULD]
not be mixed in a label." That is a stricture about linguistic entities,
not about entries in a dictionary.
> Other issues occur if the writing order of
> characters in a language obeys specific rules and one chooses to
> enforce them (a potential issue with, e.g., Hangul, although,
> again, the choice of whether or not to try to enforce is up to
> the registry).
This is even more confusing. What languages do *not* impose a specific
writing order on their characters?
> It is not clear that the current proposal is much better than 3066
> for handling those cases, but I wonder if anyone has carefully
> evaluated whether it would make things worse.
How could it? There is no requirement that there be a table for
every possible language tag, after all; all existing language tags
remain valid. These tables are just tagged content like any other,
though the application of the tag is different from the usual
application.
--
XQuery Blueberry DOM John Cowan
Entity parser dot-com jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Abstract schemata http://www.reutershealth.com
XPointer errata http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Infoset Unicode BOM --Richard Tobin
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf