Subject: Re: [idn] Genicode (read as Genie-code) vs Punycode

From: Kenneth Whistler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:37:34 -0700 (PDT)

> thoughts anyone?

Yes. When discussion gets to the level of arguing over names of
something, it generally means the technical issues are either
resolved or unresolvable.

In this case, "fixing" the name punycode isn't worth the effort.
(By the way, I don't like it either.) It can just stay punycode
in the RFC. Feel free to market it however you want, but end users
shouldn't see or hear about it, anyway, since it is just
one step in the whole algorithm for IDNA.

I don't think that "Genicode" is any improvement. In fact, if
anything, I would prefer just ACE: Adam Costello Encoding. ;-)

--Ken

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:23:47 -0700

> resolved or unresolvable.

Or the combatants aren't focusing their efforts in the right place.  But
I don't think that's what's happening here.  The technical issues are
resolved and the combatants have some time to deal with less pressing
concerns.

> one step in the whole algorithm for IDNA.

As I said.  Most users will never hear the term (just as they don't
currently hear terms like "SMTP"), and propeller-heads already know that
it is pointless to argue over the aesthetics or technical precision of
names for technologies.  They're just names.

> anything, I would prefer just ACE: Adam Costello Encoding. ;-)

I thought ACE-Z would have been just fine to refer to Adam's specific
algorithm, as opposed to just plain ACE which refers to the broad
concept of an ASCII-Compatible Encoding.

BTW, probably 99% of English speakers (including this one) would
pronounce Genicode as 'jen-ih-kod.  It's generally not a good sign when
you invent a name for something and then have to tell people how to
pronounce it.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California