Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence

["Edmon" <edmon@neteka.com>]

Hi John,

I completely concur with you, perhaps you misunderstand my statement.  What
I am saying is that if CNNIC believes that there is compelling user
expectation within their registry to have SC=TC, then they should absolutely
implement it.  However, if another TLD say .tld believes that preserving
TC/SC information is important, then they will have the option to do so.
The registrant will always have the option to make them equivalent.

I also concur that IDN should strive to solve some language issues, however,
I also think that it is the IDN "implementations" that should solve the
problem and not the "core protocol" which we should concern ourselves with
at this moment.

Edmon


> Your assertion about "no compelling user expectation" is, in that
> context, false: a compelling user expectation has been asserted
> by CNNIC and others.
>
> And, if any of those language issues are part of the real
> requirement, the WG is simply at risk of being irrelevant.  Not
> wrong, but irrelevant.   If one reaches that conclusion, then
> there is a procedural and responsibility question as to whether
> the WG should (and can) report that it can't, within its charter,
> do anything relevant or whether it is obligated to report
> _something_ out anyway.
>