Re: [idn] Report from the ACE design team

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@prodigy.net>]

Are TLDs included ?

http://root-dns.org/ZoneExchange/AIS.txt

bq--aauf4326fe.   172800   TXT   "Manager : The Universal Registry"
bq--aauf4326fe.   172800   TXT   "Established : 2001"
bq--aauf4326fe.   172800   NS   us.universalroot.com.
bq--aauf4326fe.   172800   NS   uk.universalroot.com.
bq--aauf4326fe.   172800   NS   hk.universalroot.com.

bq--abpf6xq.   172800   TXT   "Manager : The Universal Registry"
bq--abpf6xq.   172800   TXT   "Established : 2001"
bq--abpf6xq.   172800   NS   us.universalroot.com.
bq--abpf6xq.   172800   NS   uk.universalroot.com.
bq--abpf6xq.   172800   NS   hk.universalroot.com.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: "Makoto Ishisone" <ishisone@sra.co.jp>
Cc: <brunner@nic-naa.net>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>; <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] Report from the ACE design team


> Makoto San,
>
> Thank you for your informative comments.
>
> It appears to me that on average every third character in the proposed
> Central African Syllabary will switch between one of three clusers, so
> broadly, this (very young) proposal and any in the same class:
>
> o using 2 or more distinct existing 8-bit or sub-8-bit repitoires,
> or
> o using a single 8-bit or sub-8-bit repitoire and and using the
>   private use area to supplement that repitoire
> or
> o both
>
> and
> o little or no correlation between repitiores used by sequential
>   characters
>
> should have the property you pointed out w.r.t. DUDE and larger contiguous
> (super-8-bit) repitoires, e.g., marginal encoding compression.
>
> Broadly, this is a property I've observed in more than once - as a
repitoire
> is constructed. Finding a set of pre-existing glyphs isn't the same thing
as
> creating a set of glyphs with some set of properties, e.g., order,
contiguity,
> etc.
>
> The effect of disallowing private-use characters, at least in the CA
Syllabary,
> may be to restrict the repitoire to Latin, which probably isn't acceptable
to
> the interested parties, at least until the UNICODE Script WG and dependent
> actors get their jobs done -- a set of subjects for a different list.
>
> Again, thanks!
> Eric
>