Re: [idn] ToUnicode output can be longer than input

["JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>]

Dear John and Oscar,
At 15:01 30/04/03, John C Klensin wrote:
> I suggest that, if you are serious about this, the usual IETF model is 
> probably more useful than complaining on this list about paths not taken 
> or paths that the WG tried (intentionally or not) to cut off).
We saw this approach has probably failed in spite of the efforts and the 
capacity of the involved persons. There is no interest to reuse it. May be 
interest in understanding why it did not work well?

> But here?  My impression is that most of the people who watched or 
> particpated in the WG are exhausted about the subject and really glad it 
> reached _some_ conclusion and got documents out the door.
True.

> Those who really like IDNA will defend it, and some of us who still have 
> misgivings about certain aspects of it would like to give it some time to 
> see if it is adopted and workable in practice.  Those who are convinced 
> that IDNA is a serious mistake, or that it will cut off important future 
> evolution (and I have never been a member of either group) have, I think, 
> mostly gone elsewhere.
I am probably one of them since I think the current solution is a 
bugged?  Sorry, I am still here.

> So I suggest taking it elsewhere, leaving this list for discussion of 
> issues in implementation and deployment of IDNA.
I fully agree. As long as IDNs were under IETF control the rest of the 
partners were blocked. Now the IDNA has been released, even if the proposed 
solution was(is) no good, it is A solution.

You wanted it? you got it? now help us making it work!
Don't disband, that would be too easy.

Now, what has been worked out in three years is a very small part of the 
problem. So it is no big deal to circumvent it if it is realy that bad (and 
may be to globally benefit from that effiort?).

1. wording is ununderstandable? ITU translated "internationalized" into 
"multinational" and others into "mutilateral". Habit takes off to note IDNs 
as "ML.ASCII" and MDNs as ML.ML". That is OK.

2. Texts are unreadable. It realy boils down to adding an European standard 
for "nasty danger" header (xn) to domain names of which non ascii 
characters have been transcoded in using Adam's funy code.

3. the choice of "xx--" as an header format instead of "x--x" creates a 
legally complex babelsquatting?. Great, the GNSO/IPC might help fixing it.

4. TLD Managers, WTO, Edifact, laws, Govs, are details "engineers" did not 
bother considering? May be this gives us more flexiblity in finishingthe 
work? Some are already trying to use it to make the IDNA bug a feature for 
the 5000 languages of the mankind (happily 20 are disapearing a year).


John, I fully agree with you. Let stop disputing about IDNA. Let help ".us" 
to support domain names after the proper spelling of the name of every US 
citizen (USA might be a country where this support might be made a law 
quick? Maybe could we read French law under voting that way?). Or let help 
scSLDs to do it, in an ML.ML format, for non roman T/SLDs.

Not three other years from now, just now.
jfc

























> regards,
>     john
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 18/04/03