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

[=?utf-8?B?dHNlbmdsbUDoqIjntrLkuK3lv4Mu5Lit5aSnLnR3?= <tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw>]

Hi !  Mr.DougEwell2:
        Let me give some explanations to your comments.
----- Original Message -----
From: <DougEwell2@cs.com>
> In a message dated 2001-12-02 23:55:02 Pacific Standard Time,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>

 What  are solved ?
         The  IDN sublayer can/need  not solve the language translation
problem. Users need a IDN to satisfy:
       (a) can communicate with TC/SC  hostname
       (b) to reduce the 2^N records in registration.
Administrator need a IDN to satisfy:
       (c) to avoid the un-predictable resolving of  hostname in delegated
DNS
    In this mailing list there are many suggestions , but these 3
requirements are come from a fact , CJK characters are not completely
unified, there are a lot of variants with the same meaning and pronouncing.
All the requirements can not be solved by this IDN sublayer. But if there
are no basic mechanism or scheme in the core sublayer , the upper layer work
will not be happened and compatible. The most basic core element is the
validation module that will validate the CJK TC/SC mixed hostname can be
further treated by ACE encoder or not.

L.M.Tseng