I see that you have not read the I-D yet, and Deng Xiang has replied your Chinese vs. Japanese arguement, I will wait for your comment on the language-tag issue, or anything not up to your standard.
Liana On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:51:02 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > 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
