[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Re: Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration
- To: idn@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Re: [idn] Re: Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration
- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:07:29 -0800
- Cc: Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr, deng@cnnic.net.cn, erin@twnic.net.tw, mclaughlin@pobox.com, Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca, ajm@icann.org, alanysho@hkdnr.net.hk, christine.tsang@hkdnr.net.hk, fred@cisco.com, harald@alvestrand.no, hlqian@cnnic.net.cn, htk@eecs.harvard.edu, huangk@alum.sinica.edu, iab@isi.edu, idn@ops.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, jasonho@umac.mo, jet-member@nic.ad.jp, jseng@pobox.org.sg, klensin@jck.com, lee@whale.cnnic.net.cn, lynn@icann.org, mao@cnnic.net.cn, mkatoh@mkatoh.net, mouhamet@next.sn, narten@us.ibm.com, nordmark@eng.sun.com, paf@cisco.com, qhhu@public.bta.net.cn, sharil@cmc.gov.my, shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr, snw@twnic.net.tw, sstseng@twnic.net.tw, tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw, vcerf@mci.net, whzhang@cnnnic.net.cn, wschen@twnic.net.tw, wuch@gate.sinica.edu.tw, yktham@umac.mo
- In-reply-to: <3C61F486.FFD1D701@iis.sinica.edu.tw>
- References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020206075920.036ed5b0@127.0.0.1><3C61F486.FFD1D701@iis.sinica.edu.tw>
At 11:29 AM +0800 2/7/02, hoho wrote:
>1. The TC/SC problem or variant problem comes from Unicode and the
>decision
> to adopt Unicode as the basis to develop IDN technology. If the
>working
> group chooses to use Unicode as basis, then it becomes a partial
>solution
> to the "global" IDN problem because of this side-effect.
This is exactly wrong. The decision to use the ISO/IEC 10646
(Unicode) character repertoire was made to make IDN a global
solution. Maybe I missed it, but what other solution has been
proposed that is more global than using 10646? We already discussed
this in detail on the mailing list many times, and no one came up
with anything more global.
>2. We do not want to delay your process either. Please refer to the
>draft
> "Phased Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names in
>Applications"
> for more details.
The "phased implementation" draft is sure to cause a great deal more delay.
- The draft has serious technical errors: the list in section 1 does
not even vaguely match the list given in Appendix B.
- As the draft admits, adopting the draft would have a very serious
negative consequence on Japan and Korea. It is very insulting to say
to people of other countries "because we have problems we cannot
solve with our script, you will be reduced to using phonetic spelling
of your names until we come up with a solution, even though we have
failed numerous times in the past trying to do this". Discussing the
political ramifications of this consequence could take years.
- The draft is open-ended about what code points would be prohibited.
Discussing whether to also prohibit additional code points will
certainly delay IDN. If you are going to make this draft actually
represent all of the scripts for which IDN is not perfect, the list
will be huge, and it will probably affect many billions more people.
If you feel that the IDN WG can deal with all those problems without
delaying IDN, you have not been paying attention to the way this WG
moves. :-)
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium