Re: [idn] URL encoding in html page

["David Leung \(Neteka Inc.\)" <david@neteka.com>]

> The best way is to write a draft, explain how you wish to transit from the
> IDNA to a long term solution (The closest I seen is UDNS). Then gather the
> rough consensus so we can move it forward.
Sure we happy to come up with a draft to talk about the transition from IDNA
to UDNS(or something similar) and submit it... : )

 > > More bits is good, but when we plan for things more than we need, then
it
> > should be considered to be a waste of resource.
>
> Read: IPv6.
So you mean there will be more characters that we will use than IP addresses
in the world that everyone knows is running out with IPv4...

> > So why do we need 128bits
> > now(i dont think the combined total of characters in all languages in
the
> > world would require that much, not unless we want to include scripts
from
> > oter planets : > ), whereas we need 8/16/32 bits for Unicode, so why not
> > design a system able to accept ACE as a fallback and also 8/16/32 bits?
If
>
> How many new han ideograph are created every day? How many ancient scripts
> not encoded yet (e.g. Linear B)?
True, those han ideograph are mostly slang words or swear words too, it
would be nice if we can have all the words formed with the combination of
the "door" in chinese to be able to input on computers... haha : )

> Or how about a new 128bit character table whereby allocation can be
> allocated to 2^64 different locale, each locale get 64bit of space to put
> their own encoding? (I know, sound much like IPv6).
>
> Are you in the position to predict the future?
I did not try to predict the future, (i think you just did below this :>)...
i think you misunderstand my last posting, i only said for now we DONT NEED
128bits to encode ALL characters in the world, USING more than NEEDED is a
waste of resources, so we should not say IPv6 is a waste of resource because
there is already a need there with IPv4 almost already ran out!!

> My best *guess* is ISO10646 will get slowly get adoption over the next 20
> years. I *guess* UTF-8 will get more popular in the next 10 years. I
*guess*
> compressed bitstream (i.e. 1bit) ISO10646 will see some more adoption in
> certain place where space is a constraint. I also *guess* there will be
some
> initative to do locale-based table (vs script based) but they will be
faced
> with huge barrier. But I could only guess...
I hope there is some analysis behind these "predictions" : )

> > you can justify why designing a system that can handle ASCII as a
fallback
> > and can automatically support 8/16/32 bits Unicode is not a good design,
> > then I think my thinking is wrong.
>
> The question is really why 8/16/32 bit Unicode is better than 5bit (ACE)?
Some existing software is already supporting this, so require less upgrade.
The software that are newly released are supporting mostly 8/16bits version
of Unicode, like newer OSes, browsers, etc... and I am not saying ACE is
bad... I am saying ACE and UTF8 or UCS should be able to co-exists in a
system, so transition will be minimal and that should be a good design.