Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:22:28 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:29:23 +0800 From: hoho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [zh-tw] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: zh-tw MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: Erin Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IETF IDN WG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Subject: Re: [idn] Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=big5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk
[Note: header field too long; To & Cc field trim - JS] Dear Dave, I understand that you are only interested in extending the range of domain names beyond ASCII and are not interested in solving either TC/SC or the CJK variants problem. We are not asking you to do that either. Unicode and IDNA, etc., do extend the range of domain names for you. But, in the mean time, it extends too much and brings too many variants of Han characters and the associated delegation and resolution problems to Internet users in other culture where these characters are used in their daily life. In other words, what you called an IDN WG solution is a partial solution. It works for a portion of the world but not the whole. We are asking people here in the WG to take the part of solution you are happy with. But, please bear in mind that there is no consensus regarding the IDN "solution" on the CJK portion, so we urge the WG to adopt a phased implementation strategy. -- Janming Ho Dave Crocker �g�J�G > 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. > > 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. . > > 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. > > 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. > > 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
