<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">FWIW, Bopomofo is not permitted as part
of the DNS root zone. You can't register a top level domain name
with it, as you can with Han or Kana.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A./<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/16/2024 9:23 AM, Bill Poser via
Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACPRsRS4STyx3mB0DpJjkCdqRC5pVR0e=5HTCWXHT+J8V3LzTA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">The use of bopomofo in Chinese is not parallel to
the use of kana in Japanese. Whereas kana are routinely mixed
with kanji in Japanese, with, e.g., a verb stem written in kanji
and the suffixes written in kana, and Japanese can be written
entirely in kana (e.g. by young children), bopomofo does not
appear in ordinary Chinese text. It is an ancillary system,
used, e.g., to give the pronunciation of Chinese characters and
is a commonly available input method. That doesn't guarantee
that it doesn't occur in email addresses, though I don't recall
seeing it. I'm not sure if it is even permitted in the legal
name of a company.<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at
7:32 AM Martin J. Dürst via Unicode <<a
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello
Henri,<br>
<br>
I don't know about Chinese and Bopomofo, but for Japanese,
there surely <br>
are e.g. company names that contain both Kana and Kanji. And
company <br>
names are one (although of course not the only) use case for
domain names.<br>
<br>
I'm cc'ing Arnt, who is one of the authors of <br>
<a
href="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gulbrandsen-smtputf8-nice-addresses-00.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gulbrandsen-smtputf8-nice-addresses-00.html</a>,
<br>
which is about email addresses (quite a bit related to domain
names) and <br>
discusses Chinese quite a bit (although it doesn't mention
Bopomofo).<br>
<br>
Regards, Martin.<br>
<br>
P.S.: draft-gulbrandsen-smtputf8-nice-addresses-00.html is in
my view <br>
still in a very early stage; I have read through it but still
have to <br>
write up my comments.<br>
<br>
On 2024-08-15 18:08, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote:<br>
> UTS #39 is commonly used as the baseline for detecting
IDN spoofs, and UTS<br>
> #39 explicitly allows combining Han and Bopomofo.
Considering that ㄚ looks<br>
> confusable with 丫 and ㄠ looks confusable with 幺, I’m
wondering if it’s<br>
> appropriate to explicitly allow this combination in the
spoof detection<br>
> context. Is combining Han and Bopomofo in one domain
label something that<br>
> occurs commonly enough in domains that aren’t intended to
be spoofs for it<br>
> being necessary not to treat the script combination as
triggering spoof<br>
> detection in the domain name context?<br>
> <br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>