Re: [idn] Which lanuages/scripts to reorder?

["Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>]

Hi, Erik

I answered for your concerns on reordering supports for new scripts 
in the new postings  titled with
"idn] suggestion: two prefices scheme for unassigned code points treatments.".

I will answer for your other concerns later time.

Thanks.

Soobok Lee

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com>
To: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 11:06 PM
Subject: [idn] Which lanuages/scripts to reorder?


> 
> One issue with reordering that hasn't been put on the table
> is that, as a process, I'm concerned that it might never complete.
> This concern is in addition to the other concerns I've seen expressed on
> the list.
> 
> Suppose that we start of defining a reordering scheme that allows for
> longer labels for some set of languages/scripts.
> Suppose this gets tested etc. and finished in the WG.
> Duing IETF last call somebody objects that their favorite language/script
> doesn't get the same benefits. What happens?
> 
> If we have accepted to do reordering for some languages/scripts what technical
> argument do we have for saying "no" to any particular language/script?
> 
> In worst case the above can repeat over and over - each new attempt at
> improving the maximum length labels for some subset of the worlds
> languages/scripts can result in requests to add yet another language/script
> to the set that needs to be supported.
> 
> Thus as far as I can tell embarking on solving reording as a pre-cursor to
> getting IDN specified and usable, might result in delaying IDN for an
> undetermined amount of time.
> 
>    Erik
> 
>