Re: [idn] Intro to my I-D

["ben" <ben@cc-www.com>]

Hi John,

Thanks for your suggestion, I will do that.

By the way, fyi, under my supreme CDN system... a registrant has the
choice of pointing the Simplified CDN and the Traditional CDN both to
the same location OR to different locations.  (If you still don't
understand... things will be more detailed / clear when my draft comes
out.)

Thanks
Ben

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
To: "ben" <ben@cc-www.com>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] Intro to my I-D



Ben (and David and Eric),

It seems to me that a high-level summary of the difficulty here
is that you want to treat Simplified and Traditional Chinese as
different so that you can assign semantics (e.g., different web
sites written respectively in the two forms) to the two writing
styles.  Our CNNIC colleagues believe that Simplified and
Traditional writing forms to express the same word should be
treated as equivalent and mapped into each other.

That is very fundamental; we can't have it both ways in the DNS
(although one can imagine "treat these alike and see what is
found" instructions to a search system).  As I understand what
they have said, mixtures of simplified and traditional systems
within a given phrase are also possible, which eliminates the
simplification you propose of automatically registering "both"
forms.

I agree with David and Eric that you should carefully examine
the Lee and Deng drafts.  But, since there seems to be a more
basic philosophical difference here, I suggest that you try to
work with them to understand each other's positions and see if
some collectively acceptable position can be found.

    john