[spec] IRIs, IDNs, and all that international jazz

[marc]

Hi

> My "threshold" for complexity is "can I write a conforming, relatively
> strict and safe server only relying on the OpenBSD base system". It's
> kind of arbitrary, sure, but what isn't.
> 
> Mandatory IRI support (and there's no real way to keep it optional,
> considering queries) would push the implementation complexity a step too
> far for me.

TLDR:

I am with bie on the matter. Option 3 is a bridge
too far for me too.

Wall Of Text:

So I value the decency which wants to include all 
human languages in the gemini ecosystem.

But in an effort to be inclusive in one dimension
one ends up being exclusive in another dimension,
namely in the space of computer languages/host
operating systems.

It is one thing to find full I8N support in a language
such as python (slow batteries included), but what
about minorities such tcl, lua, m4 or sed ?

Protocols define the interactions between
computers. Computers don't speak any human language
all, they are programmed in computer languages. And so
it strikes me as weird to embed the (combinatorial)
complexity of human languages deep in the protocol
stack, but risk excluding niche computer languages or
operating system... which in some cases are just
one man efforts.

While the OSI 7 layer network model has its
deficiencies ("all models are wrong, some are
useful"), it does help us think about a network,
from inconvenienced electrons at the lowest layer to
high level abstractions at the top.

I think internationalisation concern belong in the
very highest level of a stack. You expect me to
say presentation or application-level, but remember
the OSI model is wrong (For instance, things like HTTP
or gemini are typically lumped into one application
layer, when there many layers to them). The actual
highest level is the naive computer uses who gets told
to "move the mouse over this and then click on this,
like so...". At that level, it might make sense for
a gemini browser to be fully localised, and render an
url in the local language (maybe even left to right,
or top to bottom).

But even the layer just below that (the competent user
level) this starts leaking. A gemini url starts with
"gemini://" - that is ascii text, and even funnier,
taken from latin. If a non-english user is confused by
english (nay, latin, with no native speakers at all)
words, then surely "gemini://" has to be rewritten as
"tweling://" or "zwilling://" or whatever farsi,
japanese or mongolian use for "twin". If not, then an
full ascii text url should be manageable too... an
url is primarily a computer address.

Long ago I came across a version of (I think it was) Pascal
had been localised into french with language keywords
like "begin" and "if" replaced. I am sure somebody can
justify this somehow, but I thought this was an impediment
to interoperability, and view the internationalising
of computer protocols (as opposed to the user interfaces) 
in a similar way.

regards

marc