--On Monday, 07 July, 2008 09:47 -0700 Ted Hardie
<hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 9:25 AM -0700 7/7/08, michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com 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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf