Excellent summary :-) There is a thinline between what is considered character equivalent and what is lexiconic equivalent. "color" and "colour" is lexiconic hence it is not. Similar, han folding as I described in the PDF is also a code-based equivalence. I suggest we stick ourselves to only code or character equivalent and leave lexiconic and context equivalent (which is beyond any reasonable machine means) to administration. -James Seng Alan Barrett wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > At 15:51 21/08/00, Keith Moore wrote: > > >I don't see any way to make the registration rules "global" without > > >imposing some language's assumptions on users of other languages > > >which do not share those assumptions. and that IMHO is not acceptable. > > > > None the less, this WG had previously agreed earlier this year > > that we needed to have the same canonicalisation/normalisation rules > > apply all over in order to be interoperable. > > > > You would pose the question of whether we want to interoperate > > globally or not. I believe the answer of that has to be that > > global interoperability is mandatory, not negotiable. > > Ran and Keith don't seem to be communicating. Let me see if I can help. > > Keith says that "registration rules" probably cannot be global. Ran > says that "canonicalisation/normalisation rules" must be global. I > happen to agree with both of them about this, and there's no conflict > here, because registration rules and canonicalisation rules are not the > same thing. > > Registration rules are administrative procedures that prohibit one > person from registering a name that is too similar to a name that > somebody else has already registered. A silly example using the > english/american language would be to say that the names "color" and > "colour" may not be registered to different people. A less silly > example using the french language would be to say that the names "cafe" > and "caf<e+acute>" may not be registered to different people. > > Canonicalisation rules, in the present context, are rules about > whether the DNS software thinks that two names (which might initially > appear to be different) are equivalent. > > It's quite easy to imagine a world in which all DNS software thinks > that "cafe" and "caf<e+acute>" have different canonical forms, yet > some registries do and other registries do not permit "cafe" and > "caf<e+acute>" to be registered to different people. > > --apb (Alan Barrett)
