Re: [idn] summary of reordering discussion

["xiaodong lee" <lee@whale.cnnic.net.cn>]

Yes.
LDH dns use 63bytes,  it seems not to be useful, why?
especially for IDN, long domain name will more useful than LDH DNS.
Though IDN's language characterisc it is not considered in technical point, 
but for end users, they cares more about it.
When user use IDN, they could use a abbr to access the website if they 
remember it.  if not, they do hope to use the whole name to visit it.


----- Original Message ----- 
发件人: "Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>
收件人: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>; "Bruce Thomson" <bthomson@fm-net.ne.jp>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
发送时间: 2001年11月9日 下午 12:55
主题: Re: [idn] summary of reordering discussion



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
> 
> Nameprep complexity justify what it achieve.
> Reordering does not.

Disagree. Significant portion of real CJK and otherscript
registration contains 6 or more characters. That will be
increased by introduction of new future broader and diverse applications of IDN.

Most webhost/mailhost names are seldom typed in , but *clicked* through
from web pages or email clients. official long biz names are welcome in IDN.

think about  chinese <customer_Service>.<china_southern_airlines_inc>.cn.
Including This necessary subdomain length, the average length of 
native-script portion of IDN may usually exceed 10, i guess.

I can't understant why someone are so restrictive and pessimistic
about the applicability and popularity of long IDN.
To shot down REORDERING ?


Soobok Lee


> 
> -James Seng
>