[Note: header field too long; To & Cc have been snapped - JS] Dear Dave Crocker,
Dave Crocker wrote: > At 06:27 PM 2/1/2002 +0800, Erin Chen wrote: > >> But, the architecture of IDN defined in above four documents does not >> solve the traditional and simplified Chinese character variant problem. > > > There are many things the IDN specifications do not do. Rather, the > specifications focus on solving satisfying only the requirement they > are supposed to satisfy. Do you mean the IDN-REQUIREMENT? It is no longer go with the goal of IDN WG and will be dropped. And we has submit a Requirements of Chinese Domain Name draft. > Solution of TC/SC is one example of equivalence among Unicode sets. > Indeed, IDN does not attempt to specify such equivalences. Equivalence > among separate Unicode sets is essentially an open technical topic for > which there are no accepted practises. > > Still, this topic has been discussed, debated and explained > extensively within the IDN working group. I understand the IDN WG has discussed for a long time. But if the Unicode sets is still not well defined as you said. Why IDN refer to a unwell defined Unicode sets? If TC/SC equivalence could not be adopt by IDN, once IDN become standard the serious expected delegation problem will occur. That means the user could not get the consistent resolving by DNS. DNS become untrust. > The purpose of IDN is to permit use of an increased range of > characters in domain name, beyond the current limit of ASCII. It is > not the goal of the working group to invent character set conventions > such as equivalence between different sets. I suggest we have to measure if we omit some requirement such as equivalence between some variants like TC/SC, then what kind of serious problem would be caused. And to review the original goal of IDN you expressed is still proper or not. > It will be wonderful when equivalence between sets is achieved. > However it is not the charter of IDN to solve basic issues of > character set equivalence and it is not reasonable to delay the > utility of the character set enhancement specified by IDN, in the hope > that some day the question of character set equivalence is achieved. We made the CDNC declaration is not intend to hinder the progress of IDN. If the IDN still could not consider or find a proper solution for CDN requirement, we rather the IDN switch off CDN temperarily till the proper solution comes out to prevent the expected serious problem occur. > Contrary to the claim that the working group is moving too quickly, my > own guess is that it has been a major source of delay for the working > group for at least 6 months. Perhaps much longer. > > d/ > ---------- > Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 Erin Chen >
