Re: Character equivalence mapping (was: Re: [idn] SLC minutes)

["Edmon" <edmon@neteka.com>]

Hi John,

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
> --On Thursday, 03 January, 2002 11:31 -0500 Edmon
> <edmon@neteka.com> wrote:
>
> >...
> > The domain names as they
> > conceptually exist however should remain user friendly.  In
> > other words, domain names for humans will contain context and
> > meaning (an "ALPHA" will be an "ALPHA" not "A"), but domain
> > names as viewed in the DNS (machine) should be devoid of
> > context.  To bridge these two, a set of equivalent characters
> > are prepared as a table for the machine so that it can blindly
> > treat them as identical without contemplating its context.
>
> But, Edmon, we already have disproofs of this in trademark
> registrations and the registrars claim (and I believe them) that
> the companies involved are anxious to take advantage of
> internationalization to register their trademarks more directly
> in the DNS.

While I dont think that trademark struggles should have too much (note that
I used not "too much" and not "without") bearing on the way we need to treat
the DNS.  Additionally I think it would actually be better for the situation
with Character Equivalence preparation.

Imagine this:

Company 1: AB holds the trademark for AB and the domain AB.com
Company 2: <ALPHA><BETA> holds the trademark for <ALPHA><BETA> and the
domain <ALPHA><BETA>.com

Can Company 2 advertise as <ALPHA><BETA>.com literally in its capitalized
form as AB.com?

> We have organizations who want to be
>   <alpha><roman-i><digits123>
>   toys-<cyrillic-ya>-us
> and so on, a list that will certainly get longer as more
> characters are perceived as available.

They can be.  That is the whole point of IDN, and I do not refute it.  But
we need to make sure that as we introduce these extended characters, we do
not cannibalize on what the DNS should be and has become, and that is to
allow a human-friendly name to be publicized without ambiguity and used to
access a resource uniquely over the Internet.  What Character Equivalence
preparation tries to achieve is to preserve the two keys for the domain
names to be able to be "publicized without ambiguity" and to "access
resource uniquely".

> What you are trying to do also involves some rather complex
> judgement calls which I don't know how to make.  As someone who
> is not very familiar with either, I've seen a number of font
> forms of Arabic and Thai that I'm not sure I could tell apart,
> at least without considerable context.  I would assume that
> daily users of the two scripts wouldn't have that problem, but
> who is to make the decision about equivalence?

This is undeniably a good question, but does it mean that we should not do
anything about what we know?  So long as we remain open and make the
necessary ammendments as we go along, I dont think we will be condemned.
But not doing anything about it, we will risk being accused.

> it would do almost nothing for internationalization other than
> throwing us back into strange transliterations or transpositions
> for many scripts.   Put differently, we would end up with a DNS
> character set that would probably support Latin-1 and Han
> characters properly, but maybe nothing else.  I don't find that
> very satisfying, much as I am concerned about accurate
> transcription of labels from printed form into the DNS.

That is precisely the misconception I want to point out.  Because the DNS
matching process treats characters as equal doesnt mean that they cannot be
conveyed within context.  On the contrary, it is designed to better support
the ability for domain names to continue to become an integral part as it
has now in the everyday context of the Internet and its content.

For example, the owner of <Alpha><Beta>.example will not have to worry about
how his design on his business card or advertisements or letterheads look
like even if his designer decides that it looks best when everything is
capitalized.  Without Character Equivalence preparation, the owner has to
worry about the confusion and make sure that in all cases, whether it comes
out in a magazine article or an editorial on the local newspaper to remind
them that they must use the lowercase form and never use the uppercase form!
Does this not actually result in the strangeness that one might thought one
was avoiding by not introducing Character Equivalence preparations?

Edmon