Dear Kenny Huang, Good work !
Now we have a foundation to re-start discussion on this issue. I'd like to comment on a few points. See below, On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 04:30:02PM +0800, Kenny Huang wrote: > (snip) > Phased Implementation for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications > (snip) > 3.2 Visual difficulty > > Some code points are visually impossible to differentiate and > could lead to many user entry errors. In this case these > code points can cause unpredictable results when queried. > The issue of visual diffculty may exist in many scripts, but > the impact of visual difficulty by different language groups > should be particularly evaluated. Though I am not so good at English, but I think "visual ambiguity" is a more proper term. > 3.3 Solutions incompleteness > > It is generally accepted that the IDNA solution does not solve the > CDN problems that listed in Appendix A. Although the WG considered > some possible solutions to the CDN problem, those solutions did not > meet the IETF's requirements. Thus, this document proposes prohibiting > the Han characters listed in Appendix B until a solution that is > acceptable to the IETF can be found, or until it is clear that no > such solution is possible. In what condition, we can declare that "it is clear that no such solution is possible" ? This may be too tough or too loose depending upon understanding and attitude toward this issue. > (snip) > 5.2 Issues for prohibiting Han code points > > The Han code points are used in many countries and territories,such > as Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore..,etc. > Except Han code points, Kana is also used in Japan and Hangel is > used in Korea. Hangel -> Hangeul > (snip) My best regards -- /*------------------------------------------------ YangWoo Ko : [EMAIL PROTECTED] We Invent Enterprise Software Solutions and Make You Secure & Powerful. ------------------------------------------------*/
