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

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

Hi Tseng,

First of all, I am all for a standardized SC=TC.  But I would rather see
that it is given as an option for registries or zone operators to determine
because SC and TC characters are characters in their own right.

The only real argument I see about this is the DNSSEC issue Erik Nordmark
pointed out, but I can see that there are ways around it but it would mean
that we would have to slightly adjust DNSSEC which we have agreed is totally
outside of the scope of this wg.  So if we are forced to make a decision on
this without the liberty to adjust DNSSEC (which as far as last IETF meeting
some of it might even never see day of light), then it is a rather
unfortunate situation.

Please do not confuse my thinking as to me being against SC=TC, I am
expressing my concern as a consumer wishing to have a choice.  Also,
philosophically I believe they are different characters.


From: "tsenglm@計網中心.中大.tw" <tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw>
>             In Twaiwan,  HongKong we use BIG5 code and many simplified
> scripts can not be key-in and displayed in their system. Many people they
> know traditional chinese characters but they don't know its corresponding
> simplified characters.  Reversely, in mainland china people only know
> simplified characters. The corresponding TC/SC has the same pronunciation
> and meanning.

That is the reason why we have unicode in the first place.  Also you have
pointed out a very good reason why TC and SC are different.  Many people
know TC and not SC and vice versa, so why and how would someone confuse a TC
domain with an SC domain?

> Todday people want to communicate each other, they regist a
> domain name for some trade mark reasons , but the ML.COM system can not
> provide the same chance to protect their rights. People in Taiwan regists
a
> TC name but he can not key-in to regist the corresponding SC name because
he
> even don't know how to do it . Then one day , some people in mainland
china
> they regist the corresponding SC name in SC.COM , it is the same meanning
> and prouncing in TC.COM . What will be happen ?  You know that PRC and
> Taiwan , even HongKong are different goverenment ,  the argument in
> intellegent right is a big trouble.

That is why I champion the SC=TC option for registries.  The problem about
forcing TC=SC into Nameprep is that we will loose the option at all levels.
Even if I own <TC>.com I wont be able to distinguish <TC>.<TC>.com from
<SC>.<TC>.com or worse, if I am now called abc.com I wont be able to have
distinct sub-zones <TC>.abc.com and <SC>.abc.com.  That is the main problem
I see and as a group we should contemplate on this matter too, not just the
second level domains that are sold.

> The case is very like that you allow
> one people to regist ABC.com and also allowed another people to regist
> abc.com and told them  that is an option and chance . Are you like english
> are treated in this way ? Why case folding is needed ? Only the history
> reason ? Why full case alphabet must be mapped to ASCII ?

I disagree to your analysis, TC and SC is rather like
Color and Colour AE and BE (American English and Bristish English)

so Color.com is different from Colour.com

and yes they are registered by two different parties.


>              Are you like to make trouble to us ?  That is why department
of
> China  information industry against chinese.COM so deeply.
>              I don't care the mixing of TC/SC , but I care why we are
forced
> .....
>
I dont really get your question here, but again I stress that I think it is
important to have a standardized TC-SC conversion mechanism, but we should
also allow individual zone operators to decide whether the TC=SC rule should
be applied.

Edmon