Hi, Erik I answered for your concerns on reordering supports for new scripts in the new postings titled with "idn] suggestion: two prefices scheme for unassigned code points treatments.".
I will answer for your other concerns later time. Thanks. Soobok Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Nordmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 11:06 PM Subject: [idn] Which lanuages/scripts to reorder? > > One issue with reordering that hasn't been put on the table > is that, as a process, I'm concerned that it might never complete. > This concern is in addition to the other concerns I've seen expressed on > the list. > > Suppose that we start of defining a reordering scheme that allows for > longer labels for some set of languages/scripts. > Suppose this gets tested etc. and finished in the WG. > Duing IETF last call somebody objects that their favorite language/script > doesn't get the same benefits. What happens? > > If we have accepted to do reordering for some languages/scripts what technical > argument do we have for saying "no" to any particular language/script? > > In worst case the above can repeat over and over - each new attempt at > improving the maximum length labels for some subset of the worlds > languages/scripts can result in requests to add yet another language/script > to the set that needs to be supported. > > Thus as far as I can tell embarking on solving reording as a pre-cursor to > getting IDN specified and usable, might result in delaying IDN for an > undetermined amount of time. > > Erik > >
