Liana wrote: > Please provide your reasoning.
Certainly, and I apologize for the tone of my previous post. 1. I did NOT agree with the concept of language tagging or script tagging of DNS identifiers, either for all scripts or for just a subset of scripts such as CJK; and I HAVE said so in the past. DNS "names" are identifiers, and they are *not* necessarily words or true "names" in any natural language. I mentioned the examples of "altavista.com" and "teoma.com" to show that domain names need not be identifiable as to language. Liana responded that it was not necessary to identify the language of those two examples, since they were unambiguously representable in the Latin script, whereas domain names encoded with CJK characters could be mappable to other CJK characters. But I, and others, HAVE stated many times that to provide a SC/TC mapping strategy that works for some characters but not others, and could provide some nasty surprises for Japanese users who do not equate these characters as the Chinese do, does not seem to be a viable part of IDN. It might be a nice marketing solution, but it is not an engineering solution. 2. I did NOT agree that, had I and others remained silent about the proposed language-tagging scheme (which was not true in any event), this would have amounted to some sort of approval of the idea; and I DID say so. Others on this list, who have far more experience than I in IETF working groups, have stated that this is not the way IETF WGs operate. Consensus is more commonly gauged using straw polls or by compiling lists of participants in favor of the idea and opposed to the idea, not by "pocket acceptance." Having said this, I understand that Liana was trying to demonstrate approval of continuing the discussion, not necessarily approval of the idea itself, and I don't want to be in the position of trying to pre-empt the introduction of new ideas. So I suppose it wouldn't hurt to look at the I-D, see what we think of it, and make our opinions known at that point. But it is NOT the case that "nobody disputed" either this point or (1) above, and to say so made it seem like the author was merely ignoring opposing voices. In a message dated 2001-12-01 20:05:03 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 21:04:13 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> In a message dated 2001-12-01 16:35:38 Pacific Standard Time, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >>> Since nobody disbute with me, I take it as we are agree to >>> the above discussion. I'd like to refer to my I-D >>> draft-liana-idn-map-00.txt for more discussion in this >>> direction. >> >> I absolutely DID dispute both the notion of language-tagging of IDN >> identifiers *and* the notion of tacit agreement to a non-consensus >> idea. But >> I guess that wasn't the answer the author was looking for. > > Please provide your reasoning. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
