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

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

apologies if this was not clearly communicated....
I speak here as an (opinionated) participant, not as "the IETF".

--On 29. august 2001 18:17 -0700 liana.ydisg@juno.com wrote:

> That is not the case.  If IETF does not want to put TC/SC
> folding in [nameprep], then it has no good reason to
> agree a versioning table to include GB, Big5, KSC, JIS to
>  transliterated ACE map.  In that case, I am no motivation
> to push for Unicode to accept the long list of radicals.
> I can sit back and see how long this will go, as I have been
> assumed that by now the TC/SC should have been in there
> long time ago, which has been proved by James that I
> was wrong.

The group decided a long time ago to go for a single character set,
and chose UNICODE/ISO 10646 for that single character set.
So any place where GB, Big5 and so on touches the system MUST be
outside the parts that are standardized by this group.

..... informative and interesting stuff deleted ...

> If IETF has no architecture to accomodate these types
> of script requirement, and is not planning to use a complete
> list of radicals,  please give me a reason for me to push it for
> Unicode standard.

The IETF is the creation of its members.
We have created an architecture that is dependent on outside parties for 
character set and linguistic expertise as captured in character set 
standards.
When those standards are not available, we cannot use them.

> Another option is that IETF still can go ahead giving the world a
> simple listing of 4128 TC/SC equivalent listing some where
> else, catching up with your product delivering schedule, waiving
>  hands and say: take care of it, but out of my sight.  The end result
>  is just like Unicode imposing a misconception of  TC/SC are
>  two different languges.

Delivering broken solutions is abhorrent to me.
So this option is not an option.

>  I hope my explaination can shed a little
>  light on CNNIC's feeling about TC/SC arguements.  You also
> can tell me that my input is out of the scope of this group, and
> I am ready to leave too.

I think the group will have a better chance of delivering output that is 
useful to both you and me if we declare that the TC/SC issue is not going 
to be solved inside the IDN work.

I believe this problem is hard enough that it has to be solved at another 
level.
Sorry about that.

                Harald