Dear all,
I'm not going to object hard to the 2nd level same entity principle,
but I wanted to give an example where it might not be ideal.
There are languages where some words have the same meaning with
or without diacritics while others do not.
In Finnish "sekki" and "šekki" are the same word, just two different
pronunciations of it, both considered acceptable today. On the other
hand "sakki", "šakki" and "säkki" are three completely distinct words
with very different meanings, and sakki.fi, šakki.fi and säkki.fi
actually belong to different registrants.
There are also lots of cases where some name's correct spelling has
diacritics but where omitting them doesn't cause confusion and has
been common just because they've not been available in domain names,
just like in Québec and .quebec.
For example, my home town is Jyväskylä. Omitting the diacritics
results in something unpronounceable which means nothing but
everybody knows it should be Jyväskylä, and both jyvaskyla.fi and
jyväskylä.fi work (and lead to the same place).
If the town were to get .jyvaskyla and .jyväskylä, it would
make sense to allow sakki.jyvaskyla, šakki.jyvaskyla and
säkki.jyvaskyla to belong to different registrants, while
insisting that šakki.jyvaskyla and šakki.jyväskylä belong
to the same registrant, ditto with säkki and sakki.
I concede that this is a rather marginal case, but I would
like to have at least some kind of exception process to
make it possible.
--
Tapani Tarvainen
_______________________________________________
Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list --
gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.orgTo unsubscribe send an email to
gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org