Fwd: Re: [idn] Intro to my I-D

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine]

The list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) was not included in my reply to Ben's note to the
tsconv authors and myself.

------- Forwarded Message

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 07:22:00 -0400
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Ben,

You've proposed to place the locus of control for scope of equivalance
rules in the hands of the registrant. 

        One of the benefits offered under this system is that a
        Traditional CDN will be able to go to a location that is
        different from the Simplified CDN, if the registrant so
        chooses.                                  ^^^^^^^^^^

In the requirements draft, up to revision 6, there was a condition [30]
([35] in revision 4 and earlier), whch read as follows:

        [30] Within a single zone, the zone manager MAY be able to define
        equivalence rules that suit the purpose of the zone, such as, but not
        limited to, and not necessarily, non-ASCII case folding, Unicode
        normalizations (if Unicode is chosen), Cyrillic/Greek/Latin folding, or
        traditional/simplified Chinese equivalence. Such defined equivalences
        MUST NOT remove equivalences that are assumed by (old or
        local-rule-ignorant) caches.

The important difference in scope is that in [30] equivalence rules are made
for zones. In your comment, equivalence rules are made for entries in zones,
or are defined not to exist, to disambiguate Simplified from Traditional forms
of Chinese characters.

So, what I propose you expand is how to express a requirement, which may be
optional, that modifies the sense of [30] to be consistent with the view you
have of what is useful.

Please ignore for the moment that [30] is no longer in the requirements
document, and the probability that few may find your proposal interesting,
and just try and get your idea expressed as well as you can.

Eric

------- End of Forwarded Message