At 2:23 AM +0800 2/10/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Can you specify more clearly ? we all like to know what is the reference ?
Sure. The "reference" is personal conversations that folks from CDNC had with other people active in the IDN WG during the Salt Lake City meeting. Many people met with CDNC members in Salt Lake City, and many of us heard similar statements in our discussions. > 1. make more money from registration People from both CNNIC and TWNIC have said "we cannot do a 2^n registration solution because we need to charge end users for each name in the zone". Of course, you do not need to charge per name: you can charge per group of names that come from a single base name. But the fact that this argument still comes up leads one to think that maybe you want to charge per name even though doing that will hurt the Chinese people. > 2. it is impossible to solve TC/SC I never said that; I have said the opposite many times. What I said was that it is impossible to get the solutions proposed in the tsconv Internet Drafts approved by the IETF because of their obvious technical and political flaws, all of which have been openly discussed in the WG. During meetings in Salt Lake City, CDNC members agreed with this and said that they would pursue a good Traditional-Simplified solution outside the confines of the IETF. > 3. registration policy can solve all ... No one has ever said that "registration policy can solve all ...". What has been said, and agreed to by TWNIC people, is that in the absence of Traditional-Simplifed mapping in IDN, registration policy can serve end users. It will not be consistent, so it will not serve them as well as it would if we could have put it into IDN. Of course, doing T-S registration can serve users better than anything that ever appeared in the tsconv drafts because it will not be limited to 1:1 mapping, and it will allow mapping that comes from humans instead of limited tables. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
