>In other words, the task of IDN is entirely solvable, >as long as we do not define the task to be too broad.
I can see how my statement could be misinterpreted, so please allow me to clarify. I did not mean to say that IDN cannot succeed. I'm quite sure that IDN can and will succeed. What I meant to say is not solvable, is the task of defining a single set of Unicode equivalence rules that is appropriate in every culture in every country around the world. It may simply be the case that under UK trademark law the names P�psi and Pepsi are deemed to be same, while under French trademark law they are deemed to be quite different. (That may be a terrible example; if so I apologize, and welcome a better example of a case where different cultures have different rules of name equivalence.) Hence my question was whether DNAME might provide an answer, to free IDN from the equivalence debate, by allowing equivalence to be determined locally on a per-zone basis. Stuart Cheshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer * Chairman, IETF ZEROCONF * www.stuartcheshire.org
