IDN Variant Labels: Difference between revisions
Dustin Loup (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Dustin Loup (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''IDN variant labels''' are [[Internationalized Domain Name]] labels that certain script communities have been identified as technically distinct, but visually indistinguishable or linguistically interchangeable. | '''IDN variant labels''' are [[Internationalized Domain Name]] (IDN) labels that certain script communities have been identified as technically distinct, but visually indistinguishable or linguistically interchangeable. IDNs are domain names that enable the use of scripts that use non-[[ASCII]] characters and are encoded by the [[Unicode]] standard. | ||
==Types of Variant Labels== | ==Types of Variant Labels== | ||
Revision as of 17:55, 4 February 2019
IDN variant labels are Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) labels that certain script communities have been identified as technically distinct, but visually indistinguishable or linguistically interchangeable. IDNs are domain names that enable the use of scripts that use non-ASCII characters and are encoded by the Unicode standard.
Types of Variant Labels[edit | edit source]
There are two types of variant labels: within-script and cross-script.
Within-script[edit | edit source]
There are various reasons that particular script communities consider certain strings as variant labels.
- In Chinese, the traditional and simplified characters share meaning, but contain slight variations in the characters.
Cross-script[edit | edit source]
Variant labels occur across scripts when different scripts contain visually indistinguishable characters
- Latin and Cyrillic scripts contain several different characters that are nearly identical.
- Example: epic (Latin) and еріс (Cyrillic)
Variants in IDN ccTLDs[edit | edit source]
On 22 March 2010, ICANN released its “Proposed Implementation Plan for Synchronised IDN ccTLDs.” The idea for “synchronised IDN ccTLDs” would allow for labels that are “considered equivalent” to be delegated in cases where the multiple labels would solve significant problems for Internet users, and the operation of the multiple labels would be expected to be operate in the same way (i.e. resolve with the same data). A public comment period was held to seek feedback on the idea, with this work ongoing.