--On Monday, 07 July, 2008 09:47 -0700 Ted Hardie
<hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 9:25 AM -0700 7/7/08, michael.dillon@xxxxxx wrote:
>> > However, many concepts in modern Chinese
>> dialects require multiple syllables to express them and
>> therefore multiple characters to write them. So there isn't
>> really a one to one mapping of word, syllable, concept as
>> many people suppose.
>
> While there may not be a one-to-one mapping of word,
> character, and concept every time, there are many words
> and concepts which can be given (and commonly given)
> in a single character. Forcing those to use multiple
> characters to get around a policy limitation may introduce,
> rather than reduce confusion.
>
> Why would we want to insist on that?
Given that there are more than enough characters in the Han
(CJK) script to make the risks of off-by-one errors fall in the
same range as two or three character domains in more alphabetic
scripts, I hope no one.
Unless someone seriously believes that these limits --whatever
they might or might not be-- should be enforced by the IDNA
protocol, can we stop coping that mailing list on this
discussion? I don't believe anyone has suggested protocol-level
enforcement so far.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf