Totally agree.   Worst case: At some point in the future, hypothetically, Unicode does something weird.  We can deal with that if and when it happens.  But there is no particular reason to assume that they will change their existing practice.  Bill Jouris  Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 8:59 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via Gnso-latin-diacritics<gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> wrote: Following up today's discussion: * There is no universally accepted definition of diacritics we could use, in Unicode or elsewhere. (The original, linguistic definition is language-specific and thus useless for DNS.) Therefore we are forced to define it for ourselves. * The anonymous Unicode expert's argument that "LATIN WITH..." might include letters that aren't diacritic is, in this context, circular: if we include them in our defintion then they are diacritics by (our) definition! We should choose a definition that works for us. Well-defined, mechanically testable, predictable, easy to implement &c. What doesn't matter is whether or not all characters there are diacritics by some other definition, as long as they don't cause any problems for our purposes. -- Tapani Tarvainen _______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org