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

[=?utf-8?B?dHNlbmdsbUDoqIjntrLkuK3lv4Mu5Lit5aSnLnR3?= <tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw>]

Hi ! Ben:
> >
> > This would limit people's choice of registration authority.
>
> In my system, CDNs cannot be a mix of TC and SC.  If that is
> considered "limit people's choices..." then I am afraid I am guilty.
> However, can you come up with even one good reason why we should allow
> a CDN to have mixed TC and SC?
>
       In HongKong , Taiwan,  user use BIG5 code . This code set has no
simpified chinese scripts. In China , GB code set has no traditional chinese
scripts . So there are no mixed type of  GB and BIG5 .  But you know
VeriSign/NSI  announced ML.com  with any UNICODE can be mixed.
That is the key problems.
       Any suggestions must be considered  what to do for .COM in this WG.
If english character is treated as case folding, Why  CJK can not treated as
the same way to reduce the number of registrations for trade mark
considerations?  Case folding is also not a protocol issue .  It is
othogonal to IDNA too.

L. M. Tseng,
> >
> > > The same techniques documented in this draft can also be applied
> > > to the current gTLD and ccTLD registries by using SLDs.  In order
> > > to be fair, everyone must agree to this system and make it a
> > > standard.  In addition, every registry must change their current
> > > registered second level domains to third level domains (ie.
> > > <whatever>.<traditional>.TLD, <whatever>.<simplified>.TLD)
> >
> > I don't think there's any need to require that all domains
> containing
> > Chinese characters follow this convention.  It could be left up
> > to each registrant whether they want to include <traditional> or
> > <simplified> in their domain name.  It needn't be at the second
> > level either.  The convention could be that clients with the added
> > Chinese support would be suspicious of simplified characters
> > anywhere to the left of .<traditional>. (wherever it appears) and
> > be suspicious of traditional characters anywhere to the left of
> > >.<simplified>. (wherever it appears).  This would allow things
> > like <FOO>.<traditional>.ac.uk.  It could be recommended (but
> > probably not required) that registration authorities never allow
> > <traditional> or <simplified> to be registered under any zone, but
> > rather require registrants to register <something>.<traditional> or
> > <something>.<simplified>.  It could be recommended (but probably not
>
> > required) that registrars register such names in pairs.
> >
> > One nice thing about your proposal is that it appears to be
> orthogonal
> > to IDNA.  Clients without the added Chinese support can still access
> > all domain names, they just won't provide the extra hints when
> mistyped
> > names fail.
> >
> > AMC
> >
>
> I feel very strongly that there is a need to create a new type of TLD
> (lsTLD- as described in my draft) to implement my idea to satisfy the
> needs of CDN users.  Do you have any opinions on that?
>
> Thanks
> Ben Chan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>