Re: [idn] Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration

[YangWoo Ko <newcat@spsoft.co.kr>]

[I removed most of personal e-mail addresses to make header short.]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 11:17:46AM +0800, hoho wrote:
> Dear Paul,
> 
> Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote£º
> 
> > The message from CDNC says that the Traditional-Simplified problem
> > for Chinese users cannot be solved by registration policy. This is
> > not true, and many of the CDNC members who have come to IETF meetings
> > know that.
> 
> Interesting question. As we could also noticed,  functions of nameprep,
> mapping, prohibit, and normalization can all be performed by registration 
> policy. So, what's the point of asking this question?

Dear Paul Hoffman, Janming Ho and others,

Yes. All NAMEPREP things can be handled by registration policy. Even, it
seems easier and more flexible to coordinate registration policies among
registries than just waiting for major software vendors to implement both
NAMEPREP and all localization improvements. If we took future upgrades of
Unicode and their impacts to implementation, I would rather forget whole
NAMEPREP.

For example, in Korea, we are almost finalizing a RFC-KR (RFC for .kr) 
which restricts scope of code points used in hostnames to get around 
inadequacy of current NFKC for Hangeul. I know this method is of no help
for TC/SC issue.

What I am trying to tell is we should consider again "why we began to
come up with NAMEPREP". If current version of NAMEPREP could not satisfy
its goal "in order to increase the likelihood that name input and name 
comparison work in ways that make sense for typical users throughout the 
world" (quote from NAMEPREP-06), this document could not go beyond WG
last call.

Happy New Lunar Calendar Year !

-- 
/*------------------------------------------------
YangWoo Ko : newcat@spsoft.co.kr
We Invent Enterprise Software Solutions
and Make You Secure & Powerful.
------------------------------------------------*/