Re: [idn] WG last call summary

["Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>]

[irrelevant cc: addresses snipped]

On Thursday I responded to D.J. "Dan" Bernstein <djb@cr.yp.to>:

>> The bottom line, once again, is that at least fifteen regular WG
>> participants and _hundreds_ of other people have written messages
>> to the IDN mailing list in opposition to IDNA.
>
> Identically worded chain letters don't count.  It's the same thing
when
> you write to your congressperson: they throw out the Xeroxed ones
> immediately.

On Sunday, Dan wrote:

> Let me emphasize that the IDN WG has received public written
objections
> to IDNA from at least fifteen regular WG participants and _hundreds_
of
> other people.

and later:

> Something is seriously wrong when an internationalization proposal
draws
> objections from hundreds of Chinese-speaking users, for example.

And Dan accuses *others* of not listening?

Let me try again, for what I expect is the last time:

HUNDREDS of people who have been told to write a letter, about an issue
they may know nothing at all about, and who have been handed the exact
text of the letter, such that they merely need to sign their names and
send it, does NOT indicate a legitimate technical concern on the part of
HUNDREDS of people.  It indicates that HUNDREDS of people are capable of
following instructions.

Dan also wrote:

> Everyone agrees that the objections together accuse IDNA
> of causing a tremendous amount of damage, including bounced email, web
> link failures, widespread user confusion, and more.

"Everyone," in this case, meaning the hundreds of lemmings who sent the
chain letters.

Once again:  IDNA can *only* cause anything like these problems if a
user manually types an IDN name differently from the way it was
originally presented.  That means the user must use TC when TC is
presented, and SC when SC is presented, just as all of us must currently
do with BiCapitalized web pages.  I agree that this is not the best
solution that the human imagination can admit, but I do NOT agree, nor
does the rest of this list, that this constitutes the sort of Armageddon
that Dan envisions.

Previously I had written:

> Nobody was ever able to explain to me, anyway, how providing Chinese
> domain names in Han characters, but not mapping them between TC and
> SC, could possibly cause more damage, conflict, and chaos than forcing
> the Chinese to use ASCII, as the current system does.

And still nobody has done so, least of all Dan, who seems more intent
than anyone on using this purported "damage, conflict, and chaos" to put
a stop to IDNA.

I no longer have any interest in reading anything Dan has to say, for or
against IDNA.  Reading his posts is like listening to a Charmin' Chattie
doll who only has four or five things to say and no capacity to listen
to others.  I will be deleting all of Dan's future messages on sight
from now on.  Whether the rest of the list chooses to do likewise is
entirely up to them.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California