Comments on Devanagari VIP team report
ICANN VIP Project: Devanagari John C Klensin ---------------------------- Note: This review was prepared at the request of the ICANN Variant Information Project Team and partially supported by ICANN. It reflects the author's personal views and may not reflect the views of ICANN staff, the members of the VIP teams, or other personnel associated with ICANN. The author had the opportunity to do partial reviews of working drafts of this document and prepared comments for the team. Some of those comments are reflected in the report as posted and hence do not appear here. Sections of it draw heavily on other work by the author that bears on the issues discussed. ---------------------------- This is an well-written and thorough report that shows the influence of careful thinking about the script and its use. It is careful to distinguish between string considerations for DNS labels and those that might apply to running text. The document also provides a valuable tutorial on the use of characters from this script and those from several closely-related scripts. The team apparently could not write what they considered an acceptable report without examining the comparative cases suggests that ICANN consider whether, for domain purposes, the multiple scripts derfived from Brahmi should be considered as a singe extended collecgtion of characters with additional restrictions about intra-label homogeniety. The report makes the extra effort to identify issues from multiple perspectives, which I find very useful. Perhaps more than any of the other reports, this one largely identifies issues and poses questions rather than creeping toward solutions and technology requirements. That is what this phase of the project asks for but makes the implications of the report somewhat harder to understand than those that explore more specific recommendations. In addition, while the other reports focus on exploration of characters and label strings, this report examines a number of use contexts for issues. It would have been helpful had more of the reports done that. Small points: o The issue with U+02BC, identified in Section 3.4, is anothr instance of the "Common and Ihnerited Script" problem discussed in my Overview review. o The discussion of browser behavior in Section 3.3.1 need not be true for all possible browsers and extensions --the behaviors are not inherent in the set of protocols that browsers are effectively required to support. o Discussions of email addresses should note that, while email may be addressed to subdomains of a TLD (IDN or otherwise), it is not possible to address mail to a user at the TLD-name itself.