Latin Script Diacritics PDP Working Group: Difference between revisions
Christiane (talk | contribs) Added information on key themes section |
Christiane (talk | contribs) Finished Key section, put in Community section |
||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
Universal Acceptance considerations also feature in the deliberations. For many end users and service providers, diacritic-based labels still face support constraints in software and systems; the PDP therefore needs to balance the linguistic correctness and identity benefits of diacritics with UA realities and potential user-experience risks when ASCII and diacritic labels coexist.<ref name="lsd-prelim-ir"></ref><ref name="lsd-pc"></ref> | Universal Acceptance considerations also feature in the deliberations. For many end users and service providers, diacritic-based labels still face support constraints in software and systems; the PDP therefore needs to balance the linguistic correctness and identity benefits of diacritics with UA realities and potential user-experience risks when ASCII and diacritic labels coexist.<ref name="lsd-prelim-ir"></ref><ref name="lsd-pc"></ref> | ||
=== Stress Testing and Case Studies === | |||
By [[ICANN 84]] (October 2025), the WG had begun using stress-test scenarios and case studies to examine edge cases where ASCII, Latin-diacritic labels and IDN variants might interact, including situations where multiple scripts and label sets could create complex relationships. These stress tests are used to refine preliminary recommendations and ensure that any policy framework can handle difficult cases without unintended consequences for security, stability, or user trust.<ref name="lsd-confluence"></ref><ref name="apr-ldpdp"></ref> | |||
== Community Input and Perspectives == | |||
The public comment forum on the Preliminary Issue Report attracted contributions from registry operators, registrars, At-Large structures, individual community members, and other stakeholders. A large majority of commenters supported initiating the PDP, highlighting benefits for linguistic accuracy, cultural representation, and parity for communities using Latin script diacritics. A smaller number of submissions raised concerns about potential phishing and confusion risks, or questioned whether the issue justified a full PDP.<ref name="lsd-pc"></ref> | |||
Regional and community perspectives, such as those documented in the APRALO Bytes update of November 2025, have emphasized that Latin-diacritic issues have been a long-standing concern, especially in francophone and other communities where diacritics are integral to language. These updates also underscore the expectation that any eventual policy should be narrowly tailored, technically robust, and closely aligned with IDN variant and UA work streams.<ref name="apr-ldpdp"></ref> | |||
== References == | == References == | ||