Re: Layer 2 and "idn identities" (was: Re: [idn] what are the IDN identifiers?)

[DougEwell2@cs.com]

In a message dated 2001-12-02 23:55:02 Pacific Standard Time, 
deng@cnnic.net.cn writes:

>> what I meant is this: Users want a solution to a certain problem, such as
>> SC/TC transliteration.  Unfortunately, the sad truth is that not
>> everything
>> users want is necessarily feasible, or even possible.
>
> Correct except SC/TC conversion. There is solution on the desk, so it isn't
> possible, it's existence.

Does the solution work for all CJK code points?  Are there any "holes" in the 
solution that will cause confusion and frustration for users?  (i.e. "Why 
does it work for this character but not for that one?")

If the solution that is "on the desk" really does work for all CJK 
characters, and does not violate the Law of Least Astonishment, and does not 
involve any unreasonable tradeoffs, then it is a greatly improved system 
compared to those that have been discussed here in the past.

> "satisfied users = $", you look down on users. It include youself while you
> are a user.

My concern is that a long-term structural change is being proposed, and it 
should be solid and stable, not geared toward next quarter's bottom line or 
being first into a new market.

You probably should know that as a software developer, I am deeply involved 
in the requirements analysis process and have often been given credit for 
putting the needs of the customer first.  I do care about users, and I have 
seen what happens when users are promised functionality that is not actually 
available, or not ready for prime time, or not completely thought out.  The 
net result, after the initial excitement, is dissatisfaction and distrust.  
Users are indeed important; they are the sole reason the product exists.  So 
it is important to give them a top-quality solution.

> Before we publish the software, we had find the problem, we'll don't fix it
> and try to salvage the situation in the next version. WHY not salvage the
> situation in this version?

Well, that's true, but it's kind of a twisting of what I meant.  What I meant 
was that if we implement an inadequate CJK solution, or one that causes undue 
hardship on the rest of the ACE and nameprep stages, NOW, it will only have 
to be "fixed" with the next version.

> If a old patient will die for serious heart disease, there is no way to cure
> completely.
> If a poor nation fall into serious famine, there is no way to help them all.
> If the answer to #1 is Yes and #2 is No, then the world will be hell of
> human being.

Gee, what's wrong with this analogy?  In these cases, the answer to #1 is NO. 
 That is, it is *not* necessary to solve the problem "completely" (i.e. cure 
the patient "completely" or feed every last citizen) in order to effect a 
significant improvement in the welfare of the patient or nation.

By contrast, CJK users may well expect (demand) SC/TC equivalence to work for 
all Han characters if it works for any, and so the partial solution may be 
worse than none.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California