RE: [JET-member 486] Re: [idn] Traditional-simplified, yet again

["Kenny Huang" <huangk@alum.sinica.edu>]

Hi Patrik,

Sorry for bothering you and others so much time. I believe there are some
misunderstanding in the communication loop. I know CNNIC and TWNIC 
detail proposals  are almost completed. These documents will be sent
to JET mailing for feedback information gathering before 3rd Nov.  We can
discuss the technical details based on the written document.  The scenario 
will be much more clear. I want to encourage everyone not to give up right
now.  Although we are all exhausted for being sunk into  IDN endless loop 
for more than 2 years.


Kenny Huang


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-jet-member@nic.ad.jp 
> [mailto:owner-jet-member@nic.ad.jp]On Behalf Of Patrik Faltstrom
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:02 PM
> To: ben; idn@ops.ietf.org; Paul Hoffman / IMC
> Cc: jet-member@nic.ad.jp
> Subject: [JET-member 486] Re: [idn] Traditional-simplified, yet again
> 
> 
> --On 01-10-29 21.56 -0500 ben <ben@cc-www.com> wrote:
> 
> > How is it
> > possible for people to delay the progress of the IETF by simply
> > posting up messages and writing drafts?
> 
> By
> 
> (a) Talking about an important issue
> (b) People tell the author what part of that issue can be solved
>     in the DNS, and how, and point to other solutions for
>     the other part(s) of the issue
> (c) Talking about the important issue again, with no changes
> (d) People tell the author again that things have to be changed
>     because the issue can not be solved in DNS
> (e) Go to (c)
> 
> Myself, I have with the CNNIC people now passed point (e) four(!) times,
> and I start to get tired on this. The proposals from CNNIC have 
> not changed
> at all since (a), and conversations have occurred on the IDN mailing list,
> in private conversations (one is going on at the moment) and in face to
> face meetings.
> 
> Further, at second pass of (e), myself and others talked with the
> authorities on Chinese scripts we know to verify that we were not 
> stupid or
> misunderstood something. _ALL_ of these said that it was the CNNIC people
> which had not understood the complexity of the problem. Further, the
> Unicode Consortium have already been through the SC/TC problem 
> once, and to
> explicitly state this fact, the Unicode Consortium explicitly 
> sent a liason
> statement to the IETF stating this fact.
> 
> When all of these things was presented to the CNNIC people, the rough
> consensus in the wg on what to do, the information from external sources,
> and the liason statement from Unicode Consortium, the response is:
> 
> - The wg don't understand the problem
> - The external sources don't understand the problem
> - Unicode Consortium don't work on these issues
> - ISO have nothing to do with Chinese Characters
> 
> And we go back to (c) again from (e).
> 
> Sorry, but this is absolutely NOTHING but a delaying process from ignorant
> people.
> 
> Note that I am nowhere above saying that SC/TC is a problem. Just like
> other equality (define the word equality whatever way you want) when you
> use more than one script -- and in some cases even with one.
> 
> I am as you can see extremely tired on this wg not making process just
> because one group of people is blocking the discussions.
> 
> This wg is not making any progress.
> 
> Absolutely NOTHING has been changed in the proposals which are on 
> the table
> the last couple of months, and as in all processes, we _could_ have been
> able to discuss things which we still have to polish here and there. For
> example, the part of the SC/TC issues which have to do with mappings from
> local charsets to Unicode, use of Unicode in other protocol elements than
> domain names etc.
> 
> So, at the moment it is CNNIC which effectively see that the world can not
> use Chinese Characters in the DNS.
> 
>      paf