Internationalization and the IETF (Re: Will Language Wars Balkanize the Web?)
At 15:35 06/12/2000 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: The same thinking that says that MIME Version headers make sense in general IETF list mail also says that localized alphabets and glyphs must be used in absolutely all contexts, including those that everyone must use and so would expect to be limited to the lowest common denominator. it may have escaped the notice of some that a fair bit of the discussion on diacritcs was carried out using live examples, and while I am sure there were some who did not see the diacritics on screen, at least there was a single definition of how to get from what was sent on the wire to what might have been displayed on the screen, and MANY of the participants actually saw them correctly displayed. MIME character sets is an example of a battle fought and won. -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 41 44 29 94 Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internationalization and the IETF (Re: Will Language Wars Balkanize the Web?)
From: Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] The same thinking that says that MIME Version headers make sense in general IETF list mail also says that localized alphabets and glyphs must be used in absolutely all contexts, including those that everyone must use and so would expect to be limited to the lowest common denominator. it may have escaped the notice of some that a fair bit of the discussion on diacritcs was carried out using live examples, and while I am sure there were some who did not see the diacritics on screen, at least there was a single definition of how to get from what was sent on the wire to what might have been displayed on the screen, and MANY of the participants actually saw them correctly displayed. Diacritical marks are no different from Cyrillic, Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Sanskrit, and other non-Latin character sets in not being not part of the international language. The goal of communicating is to communicate, not wave flags in support of national languages. When you are trying to talk to strangers and have no clue about their languages, you are a fool to not use the common, international language, no matter how poor and ugly it is. MIME character sets is an example of a battle fought and won. When MIME is used to pass special forms among people whose common understandings including more or other than ASCII, MIME is a battle fought and won. When MIME is used to send unintelligible garbage, it is a battle fought and lost. Whether the garbage is HTML, the latest word processing format from Redmond or a good representation of the mother tongue of 1,000,000,000 people is irrelevant to whether the use of MIME is wise or foolish. If the encoding is not known before hand to be intelligible to its recipients, then the use of MIME is foolish. MIME is a good *localization* mechanism, either in geography or culture or in computer applications (e.g. pictures or sound). The continuing IETF efforts to extend MIME to include yet more extra or special forms in the vague hope that the recipient will surely be able to interpret at least one is probably the best of what we can expect from "internationalized" domain names in 2 or 3 years. Unless something like Vint Cerf's principle of encoding *localized* domain names in ASCII is followed, the IDN efforts will at best repeat the history of MIME email exemplified by the many Microsoft MIME formats. In MIME, except in special cases, the "universal" form of the body is either sufficient and the fancy versions useless wastes of cycles, storage, and bandwidth, or the "universal" form can only say "sorry, better upgrade your system." Just as in the vast majority of HTML+ASCII email where there is can be no useful difference and there is rarely a visible difference between the ASCII plaintext and the HTML encrypted version, *localized* domain names will either be unusable outside their native provinces or they will be usable with a 7-bit ASCII keyboard. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internationalization and the IETF
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The notion that use of languages other than English can or should be 'localized' strikes me as both shockingly arrogant and hopelessly naive. It strikes me that the underlying assumption that people can't or won't deal with numeric addresses may no longer be a valid one, once full internationalization of canonical names is a reality. It would be a lot easier for me to handle pure numeric addresses than, for example, Chinese characters. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of Internet message addressing is done automatically through the use of bookmarks/hyperlinks or email address books, anyway. It might be a hassle in the original contact to have to type in a sequence of numbers, but after that it's back to point and click. Maybe in the long run we just won't need domain name translation. Cheers, RGF Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP Information Systems Security Officer National Business Center U. S. Dept. of the Interior [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
Re: Internationalization and the IETF (Re: Will Language Wars Balkanize the Web?)
Keith Moore wrote: Furthermore, a great many people use multiple languages (not necessarily including English) is, so that a given person, host, or subnetwork will often need to exist in multiple (potentially competing) locales at once. Sometimes even in the same sentence. My mother grew up partly in Quebec; when she's talking to her siblings, they'll often use French words when the English ones don't come to mind immediately. -- /==\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=| |eCal Corp. |How many roads must a man walk down before he| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|admits he is LOST? | \==/
Re: Internationalization and the IETF (Re: Will Language Wars Balkanize the Web?)
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 07:23:11 -0500 From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] At least the recipient has the unintelligible data well isolated and labeled. MIME did its job. Indeed. If I get a mail message which is in HTML only, 99.97% of the time it's SPAM-mail. And I've lost count of how many time I've received Chinese (or other Asian language) SPAM-mail. In fact, I'm seriously thinking about coding up a rule which automatically junks HTML mail unread. I guess MIME is useful for something. :-) - Ted
Re: Internationalization and the IETF
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:06:41 CST, "Robert G. Ferrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: bookmarks/hyperlinks or email address books, anyway. It might be a hassle in the original contact to have to type in a sequence of numbers, but after that it's back to point and click. Until the destination moves to a new co-loco or they rewire their machine room. I have hosts that have had the same hostname but 5 different IP addresses in as many years. Let's not forget why we invented DNS in the first place.. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech PGP signature
Re: Internationalization and the IETF
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 17:09:16 +0100, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: We've done without it thus far for telephone numbers, and that does not seem to have hampered their use and availability. Umm.. No. We haven't. You got a phone book in your office? Ever dialed 555-1212? ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech PGP signature
Re: Internationalization and the IETF (Re: Will Language Wars Bal kanize the Web?)
[recipient list trimmed] Look at other international communications systems, like TELEX and EDI (Electronic Data Interchange). Why are they so "universal"? they aren't. both are used by a limited number of people within a limited set of business interests, as compared to the Internet. I personally think that any internationalization process should always look for the most common set of shared stuff. the "most common set of shared stuff" is already supported, so people who are content with that set can already communicate quite well. but the vast majority of people who speak other languages than English cannot communicate effectively using that "most common set of shared stuff", so we're trying to address the problem for those people. Of course, this highly reduces the different flavours, this narrows the possibilities, but we gain in standardization, in internationalization, in mutual understanding! nice dream. but the vast majority of people in the world who don't speak English might not appereciate your efforts to marginalize them so that you can gain "mutual understanding" with everyone who does speak English (or is willing to learn it). Look at these two artificial languages : Esperanto and Volapük. then look at how many people actually use those languages, and conclude that they're irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Keith
Re: Will Language Wars Balkanize the Web?
you missed it. Suppose you could not exchange in commerce with a person of a given nationality, not because you did not have a language in common with him or her, but because your system could not interpret his or her name. That would mean that you could not spend money in that person's direction, because you could not communicate with him or her. And it means that person is at a disadvantage in your marketspace, and that it's not your problem. why in the world do people think they can justify or not justify actions based on whether something is an advantage/disadvantage in some "marketspace"? Keith
Re: Internationalization and the IETF
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Umm.. No. We haven't. You got a phone book in your office? Ever dialed 555-1212? Not a valid comparison. Do we have a worldwide, global phonebook that lists every telephone number on the planet? No. Do we have telephones with keyboards into which you type a name instead of a number? No. And yet we get by very well without them. The issue of how distributed a database can be before it ceases to be a single database aside, yes, I do have a telephone into which I type a name instead of a number. However, the name must be stored on the phone - analogous to /etc/hosts, not DNS. You're really muddying two issues, though. The initial claim, as I understood it, was that the ability to do DNS lookup was irrelevant, that one would simply maintain one's own database of "IP numbers I like", whether one was a computer or a person. And then, when one of those computers changed IP addresses, one would... one would... wardial all the IP addresses available until one received the expected response, presumably. Yes, the DNS database is much better organized, easily accessible, thorough, and generally more accurate than what passes for a global phone number database. However, I don't think you can deny that there exist transactions which are worth promoting under IP and telephony which could not exist without such semi-authoritative databases. With that in mind, what is your claim, again? -= flail? http://flail.com/ =- -= the online comic strip =-
Re: Will Language Wars Balkanize the Web?
Keith; you missed it. Suppose you could not exchange in commerce with a person of a given nationality, not because you did not have a language in common with him or her, but because your system could not interpret his or her name. That would mean that you could not spend money in that person's direction, because you could not communicate with him or her. And it means that person is at a disadvantage in your marketspace, and that it's not your problem. why in the world do people think they can justify or not justify actions based on whether something is an advantage/disadvantage in some "marketspace"? They can justify them locally within local marketspaces, of course. However, they can't justify to call them internationalization. Masataka Ohta
Re: Internationalization and the IETF (Re: Will Language Wars Balkanize the Web?)
From: Henk Langeveld [EMAIL PROTECTED] You know, it isn't that long ago that I realised that for many Americans, "International" is synonymous with "Non-American". That is as true as the observation that many who learn English as a second language think that "international" is synonymous with using the language of their few dozen million countrymen. It is a fact that the single international language of the late 20th and early 21st is far more closely related to a subset of American English than any other local language. It is also a fact that only during my lifetime has that odd situation developed. If the world had asked you or me to design an international language, I think either of us would have done better. But the first fact is all that matters. If it makes your feel better, note that just as Latin was not exactly what Italians spoke, the current international language is not exactly what is spoken by citizens of the largest nation that calls itself The United States of America (there are 1) and whose mother tongue is English. Thanks to satellite TV and other forms of what the P.C. call cultural imperialism, the modern difference are small, but they exist. From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diacritical marks are no different from Cyrillic, Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Sanskrit, and other non-Latin character sets in not being not part of the international language. The goal of communicating is to communicate, not wave flags in support of national languages. In a sense, Harald's observation points out a case in which all those other sets very much ARE part of the "international" language. If those are part of your "international language," then what characters are not part of it? It is Polically Correct to pretend we all speak, read, and write a single language, but also hopelessly silly. It does not matter whether readers understood the semantics of the strings; they needed to be able to see them. That is not national flag waving. That is global utility. "Global unity" is a matter of everyone being able to communicate with everyone else. It has not only has nothing to do with each of us using our favorite set of glyphs, but goes against it. Each of us using our favorite language *internationally* is a real Tower of Babel. Being able use strings is not only a matter of being able to type their characters. Those of us who have studied languages with alphabets other than what learned while young have discovered that just as the human ear has difficulty hearing sounds outside our mother tongues, the human eye has trouble seeing foreign glyphs. If they're not yours, all of those diacritical marks look the same or are invisible. There are good reasons why the international lingua francas of previous millenia have forced people to transliterate their native writings instead of importing them wholesale. MIME and 8-bit domain names are mechanisms for importing wholesale instead of transliterating. They're good *locally*, but not *internationally*. ... Technical standards work often gets distracted by trying to deal with issues that are outside the scope of reasonable technical standards work. It should not be the task of such work to dictate or constrain users to only socially acceptable behavior. That is a social task, not a technical one. Yes. So why do otherwise rational IETF particpants claim that social and political notions such as "global unity" are somehow related to MIME and IDN? MIME and localized domain names are good and necessary, but only locally or provincially, even when "locally" involves vast land areas (e.g. Russian or Spanish) or billions of people. Choosing to send various types of data requires making decisions about the context. No technical standard can be designed to "automatically" determine when it is, or is not, appropriate to send that data, whether it is diacritical marks, kanji, or an excel spread sheet. Even when the sender has information about recipient capabilities, social factors affect the choices. Yes, so why do some MIME and *localized* domain name advocates claim otherwise? What is the pathology insisting that sending MIME to international mailing lists makes sense? Why do apparently rational people claim that 8-bit binary domain are "international"? Because they've been infected with Political Correctness or because they don't want to dilute political support among the unthinking for whatever they're advocating? ... At least the recipient has the unintelligible data well isolated and labeled. MIME did its job. Yes, but the justification of the sender for using MIME to send unitllitible data is crazy, since communication is averted while resources, including the human recipient's time, are wasted. ... The question is whether a coherent extension to DNS will be done in a fashion which will keep the DNS integrated, or whether this requirement produces an
Balkanize - IDN
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
People can and will use their own languages on the Internet - in email,
on the web, and in domain names, and without regard to their location
in either the physical world, the currently topology of the network,
or the TLD of the host they are using at the moment. Furthermore, a
great many people use multiple languages (not necessarily including
English) is, so that a given person, host, or subnetwork will often
need to exist in multiple (potentially competing) locales at once.
Fortunately the IDN group is making very good progress, and I'm
confident that consensus around a concrete proposal will soon emerge.
Dan K [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Well, People cope with the flaws reasonably well. The codeset loaded into
this email client and OS has a hefty smash of diacritial support. Most
languages with a western origin can be represented with some moderate
difficulties.
A Scientific American article on machine representation showed how uneven
the support is, showing some languages really take a beating from word
processing in general. The negative example was Farsi, which they
illustrated looks tragically bad when machine rendered without specific
technology support.
The 16 bit attempts for some ideographic languages seems substaintially usable.
One reason the IDN thing is so daunting is the work arounds are not that
bad. For instance, you can embed a backgroundless GIF into a web page and
have any ideogram link to a URL. That's nearly ideal in many ways. Storing
it as a bookmark, "favorite" whatever, the underlying machine language is
barely encountered. If the local Software browser stored the graphic neatly
and presented it well, the author would have total freedom to compose an
image of any sorts and have it persist indefinitely. Disorderly but functional.
That's why I think the work should continue and broaden, and somehow, I
don't know how, get more non-technocrats to try this stuff out. Not rush
into global piecemeal application. As of course discussed at length
previously, those are reasons to get the protocols perfected in the absence
of knowing how to apply them. Subtle work.
I'd liek to do more of substance other than theorize. I think I will study
the concepts behine unicode this weekend and try to develop a better
understanding of that work.
Regards to all,
Dan Kolis
Dan Kolis - Lindsay Electronics Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
50 Mary Street West, Lindsay Ontario Canada K9V 2S7
(705) 324-2196 Phone (705) 324-5474 Fax
(888) 326-5654 Pager Anywhere (888) DANKOLIS {Same #)
An ISO 9001 Company; SCTE Member ISM-127194
/Document end
Re: Internationalization and the IETF (Re: Will Language Wars Balkanizethe Web?)
Vernon; MIME character sets is an example of a battle fought and won. When MIME is used to pass special forms among people whose common understandings including more or other than ASCII, MIME is a battle fought and won. FYI, we, Japanese, have, long before MIME, been and still are exchanging local characters purely within the framework of RFCs 821 and 822. See RFC 1468. MIME is a good *localization* mechanism, either in geography or culture No. ISO 2022 gives the good localization mechanism. Unlike MIME, you can use and we are using it in UNIX files without mail headers, file types, charset tagging nor POSIX locales. ISO 2022 gives proper localization information. It can be used in internationalized computer files to store international characters and on internationalized computer terminals to display international characters. However, even with ISO 2022, it is meaningless to "internationalize" domain names, of course, because ISO 2022 do not "internationalize" people using domain names. The only problem of ISO 2022 is that it is too complex having too much optional features beyond the localization. So, proper profiling, such as that specified in RFC 1468, is essential. Then, ISO 10646 *simplified* ISO 2022 by removing the essential feature of localization keeping all the other complexities, many of which are now, though ignored, mandated. MIME charset may be useful for ISO 10646. MIME charset can supply the localization information to ISO 10646 as I demonstrated, as a silly joke, in RFC 1815. Masataka Ohta PS Note that MIME charsets of "ISO-8859-*" also removes the essential but optional feature of ISO 2022 to give localization information inline, which makes MIME useful for "ISO-8859-*".
Re: Internationalization and the IETF (Re: Will Language Wars Balkanize the Web?)
If the world had asked you or me to design an international language, I think either of us would have done better. Don't be too sure. Even today, there are no more speakers of Esperanto than of Mayan.
Re: Balkanize - IDN
One reason the IDN thing is so daunting is the work arounds are not that bad. For instance, you can embed a backgroundless GIF into a web page and have any ideogram link to a URL. That's nearly ideal in many ways. only if you assume that people "nearly" always get domain names (or things that contain domain names, like email addresses and URLs) from web pages. in practice the contexts in which domain names appear and are transcribed are far more diverse than that. what you are saying, in effect, is that people who don't speak English don't need to be able to transcribe domain names from other contexts. Keith
Re: Balkanize - IDN ii
Dan Kolis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: One reason the IDN thing is so daunting is the work arounds are not that bad. For instance, you can embed a backgroundless GIF into a web page and have any ideogram link to a URL. That's nearly ideal in many ways. Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: only if you assume that people "nearly" always get domain names (or things that contain domain names, like email addresses and URLs) from web pages. in practice the contexts in which domain names appear and are transcribed are far more diverse than that. what you are saying, in effect, is that people who don't speak English don't need to be able to transcribe domain names from other contexts. Dan K says: Magazines have absolutely no interest in making it possible to enter URL sucessfully you find in a printed publication. They insert hypens, kern, change underlining, all sorts of sins in printing URLs. They have had enough years handling these objects to not mangle them. Your not speaking any language when you select characters and entering them anyway. Your just finding the right buttons to press. I've suggested a regime that has some tricky_to_build slop in it, so you get the same results with or without much attention to detail. This is only in the context of DNS entries. People surely have a right to make stuff look as elaborate as they like, the question is, if they don't to that, do they get punished for what they don't know how to do. General question: Jon Postel got amazing results... Many of the old(er) timers in this business must have talked to him at length about the DNS. What was his take on this sort of thing? Regards, Dan Kolis
Babel and the works of many - IDN
Matt Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If the world had asked you or me to design an international
language, I think either of us would have done better.
Dan Kolis [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Well in biblical theology; I've heard it goes like this: Everyone on earth
(well on the building site for sure) could understand each other, then "God
so feared man (details apparently lacking, something about a building
project going too well in Babel)", he inflicted suddenly all different
languages on them and they screwed up the tower.
No wonders its a hard problem. Its been designed by a supreme being to be
difficult! I think more committee members are required.
(oh, and something about some other attribute; some dudes in the crowd could
understand everyone anyway, and be understood while the others thrashed
around, freaked out). Some holy parameter they had. I don't know how you get
that accreditation. Makes me think of Douglas Adam's "Babelfish".
Regs, "A Babelfish in the ear to you!",
Dan
Dan Kolis - Lindsay Electronics Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
50 Mary Street West, Lindsay Ontario Canada K9V 2S7
(705) 324-2196 Phone (705) 324-5474 Fax
(888) 326-5654 Pager Anywhere (888) DANKOLIS {Same #)
An ISO 9001 Company; SCTE Member ISM-127194
/Document end
Re: Internationalization and the IETF
Yes. 555-1212 (and it's regional equivalents). No. That number only works in certain places, for certain numbers, not everywhere for everything. It's still name-to-address mapping. But it is not universal and worldwide. DNS may represent the same oversight that IP addressing schemes have included thus far. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from the experience of the telephone network.
Re: Balkanize - IDN ii
Magazines have absolutely no interest in making it possible to enter URL sucessfully you find in a printed publication. they do a much better job when the URL appears in paid advertisement copy.
Re: Balkanize - IDN ii
keep it simple. roughly: be tolerant in what you receive and conservative in what you send - (to promote interoperability). vint At 05:11 PM 12/7/2000 -0500, Dan Kolis wrote: General question: Jon Postel got amazing results... Many of the old(er) timers in this business must have talked to him at length about the DNS. What was his take on this sort of thing?
Balkanize = IDN?
I have refrained myself from participating in this discussion so far but it got to a point where i feel there is a need for clarification. a) Discussion here assumed that balkanize of the Internet = IDN. Why so? Probably because IDN is bring something most people here not able to understand. I have no intention to argue to those who based upon "if I dont understand it, you are balkanizing" since it is probably pointless self-centric argument. However, what is important to clarify is that IDN WG is not trying to balkanize the Internet. In fact, we are trying to do the reverse, ie, prevent the balkanization by defining an interoperable standard for IDN. Put it this way: There are probably worst method to define IDN such as letting the Industry determine it... b) I can see Ohta-san back on the topic of IDN and LDN (I18N vs L10N). Once again, I can go on a long argument with the choice of names, OR; I can go on and do something more productive. I choose the latter since in some sense, there is no differences in that we are trying to introduced non-ASCII characters into domain names. Call it what you like. c) The IDN WG is making huge progress in the little time we have and the pressure. There are two design team working on the protocol and something called "nameprep" in IDN termiology. I have no presumation on when we can finish our work but I hope soon. For those interested, http://www.i-d-n.net/ is the official WG site. d) IDN is one of the latest I18N thing to hit IETF. It is not the first and I am sure it is not the last. It is important for IETF as a whole to think how to deal with I18N in general. There is no point taking all these attempts as threat of balkanization. Rejecting them in IETF would only results these to be done elsewhere. I have no opinion whether doing in IETF or outside IETF is 'better' but that it is a choice we all in IETF have to made. There is no right or wrong but whether you like it or not, it is coming. -James Seng
001208ù¶}°ªº¸¤Ò¹q¤l³ø¡m²y§Þ¤j¶iÀ»¡n¶i¶¥24½Ò¡@¥Î¤@ªK²y±ì«Ø¥ß¥¿½Tªº¯¸«º
¡m²y§Þ¤j¶iÀ»¡n¶i¶¥24½Ò¡i¹ê¦aºt½m¡j¡@¥Î¤@ªK²y±ì«Ø¥ß¥¿½Tªº¯¸«º
ù¸ÎÀM@ù¶}°ªº¸¤Ò¾Ç°|°|ªø
¡@¡@¤j³¡¤Àªº²y¤Í³£·|¦³¦±²yªº²{¶H¡A¦³®É¡A¬Æ¦Ü³sÀ»²yÂI³£¤£¬O´x´¤ªº«Ü¦n¡C³oÓ²{¶H¤£¯à¥Î°Ê§@ªºÆ[©À¨Ó¼fµø¡A¥i¯à¬O¦Ù¦×ºò±i¡A©ÎªÌ¬O¡u¾mI¡v¡C
¡@¡@´X¥G¨CÓ²y¤Í¡A©Î¦h¡B©Î¤Ö¡A³£¦³¾mIªº²ßºD¡C
¡@¡@¥Ñ©ó²y³õ¤W¡B²y¹D¤¤¡A·¥¤Ö¦³¥©Zªº¦a§Î¡F¦³®É¡A¬°¤F±N²yÀ»¦^²y¨ì¤¤¥¡¡A°t¦X²y¹D¤¤·î§Î¦a§Î¡A©Î¬O¦]¬°²y¦ì¤Q¤À§¢©V¡A¬°¦¹¡B¯¸«º¤£±o¤£°t¦X¦a§Îקï¡A³oºØª¬ªp¤U¡A¦pªG¯¸«º¦³ÂI¾mI¡A¤]¬O¥¿±`ªº¤ÏÀ³¡C
¡@¡@¦ý¬O¡A¦pªG³B¦b¥©Zªºµo²y°Ï¡A©Î¬O¦b½m²ß³õ¤W¡B½m²ß´§±ì°Ê§@¡A¦¹®É¡A§Aªº¯¸«º¡B¦pªG¬O»øµw¡A©Î¬O¦]¬°¤W¥b¨¹L©óª`·N²yªº¦ì¸m¡A¦Ó²£¥Í¾mIªº²{¶H¡A²y¸ô¦]¦¹¦³Ås¦±¡A©Î¬O¡A¦]¦Ó´x´¤¤£¨ìÀ»²yÂI¡C¡u×¥¿¯¸«ºªº¨¤«×¡v¡A´N¦¨¤F·í°È¤§«æ¡C
¡@¤@¯ë¤HÀ»²y«eªº«ù±ì°Ê§@²ßºD¡G
01.±N²y±ì©ñ¦b¦a¤W¡C
02.¥Î¥ª¤â¸Õ¹Ï¥h´¤ºò²y±ì¡C
03.¦A¥Î¥k¤â¦º©Rªº´¤¦í²y±ì¡C
04.µM«á¡A¤~¥¿¦¡¶i¦æ¡BÀ»²yªº´§±ì°Ê§@¡C
¡@¡@§Ú»{¬°¡A©h¥B¤£½Í¡B¥H¤Wªº·Ç³Æ°Ê§@¡A¨BÆJ¦X¤£¦X©y¡A¦n¤£¦n¡Hº¥ý¡A¤Wz°Ê§@³Ì»Ýnק諸²Ä¤@n¶µ¬O¡u¯¸«º¡v¡C
¡@ù°|ªø±ÀÂ˲©ö¦³®Äªº´®±ìÁB¥¿ªk¡G
01.¦bI«á¡Bª½´®¤@ªK²y±ì¡C
02.Áv³¡ºÉ¶q©¹«á¼¡C
03.¨â»L½¥»\Ås¦±¡B««ª½©ó²y¦y¤W¤è¡C
04.»´Âà¤W¥b¨¡A½m²ß¤O¶qÂಾ¡C
05.¦V¥kÂਮɡA¨â»L«O«ù¤£°Ê¡C
06.¦V¥ªÂਮɡA¥k¸}½¥»\¶Kºò¥ª¸}½¥»\¡C
¡@¡@¦h¥[½m²ß¥H¤W¨BÆJ¡A²ßºD«á¡A§A¦ÛµM¦³¤@Ó¡A©Ò¿×¦ÛµMªºÂਰʧ@¡A»P¥¿½Tªº¯¸«º¡C
***
¡m·s¤â¤W²y³õ¡n¹êªp³ø¾É¢±¡@§Úªº²y¦bþ¸Ì¡H
Moria@ù¶}°ªº¸¤ÒÀW¹D½s¿è
¤W³õ²y¤Í¡GL¥ý¥Í¡BL¤Ó¤Ó¡BL¤p«Ä¡BH¨k«Ä
²y³õ¡G¥x¥_¸U¨½»B»A²y³õ
¡u¨º¬O§Úªº²y°Õ¡I§Aªº¦b¯óÂO¨ºÃä¡I¡v
¡u¬O¶Ü¡H§Úªº²y¦n¹³¬O±¼¨ì³oÃä¨Ó¡I¡v
¡@²Ä1¬}ªº¶}²y¦bL¥ý¥Í»PH¨k«Ä¦U¸É¶}¤@²y«á¡AÁ`ºâ¬O¯à©¹«e²¾°Ê¤F¡CµM¦Ó¡A¥|Ó¤H¦P¼Ëªº°ÝÃD«o¨Ó¤F¡G¡u§Úªº²y¦bþ¸Ì¡H¡v
¡@ÁöµM¡A²y³£¶}¥X¥h¤F¡A¦ý¬OÀ»²y¥X¥h«á¡An¥Î²´·ú§ì¨ì¦Û¤v²yªº¸¨ÂI¡A¹ï¥L̨ӻ¡¦³ÂI§xÃø¡C°£¤F¡AL¤p«Äªº²y°±¦b³Ì»·³B¥~¡A¨ä¾l¤T¤H³£¦b®t¤£¦hªº¦ì¸m¡A¦A¥[¤W´²¸¨¦b²y¹DÃ䪺µL¥D¥Õ²y¡A²y¹D¤¤ªº³o´X±ì¡A«KÅã±o¦³ÂI²V¶Ã¡C
¡@©¯Á«Caddie²´¦y¡A¤@ÓÓ§â¥L̲yªº¦ì¸mµ¹§ì¥X¨Ó¡A¤£µM¡AÁÙ¯u±o¦U¦Û¬DÁû²y¥´¡C¨ÌµÛL¥ý¥Í¡BL¤Ó¤Ó¡BH¨k«Ä¡BL¤p«Ä¶¶§Ç¡A¥LÌÄ~Äò§â²y±æªGÀ¤è¦V±À¶i¡C
¡@²y¦b³Ì»·ªºL¤p«Ä¦ü¥G¦³¨Ç¿³¾Ä¡AÁöµM´§±ì®ÉL¥ý¥Í¦Ñ¬O¦b¥L®ÇÃä´£¿ô¡G¡u¤£n§CÀY¡A¬Ý«e¤è¡C¡v¦ý¡A²ßºD¦ü¥G«ÜÃø¦b¤@®É¶¡§ó§ï¡A¥L¸òCaddie´«¤FÅK±ì«á¡A´N«æ¦£¦£¦a©¹«e¶]¡A¤]¨S¦h·Q³Ì«áÀYªºL¥ý¥Í¥¿·Ç³Æn´§±ì¡Aª½¨ì¤j®a³Û¥L°±¡A¥L¤~«éµM¤j®©¶]«e±¦³¥i¯à³Q²yÀ»¤¤¡C
¡@L¥ý¥Í»PH¨k«Ä³£®³¤F²y¹D¤ì±ì¡A¤@¥I·Ç³Æ§â¶}²yªº¥¢»~±Ï¦^¨Óªº¼Ë¤l¡C¤£¹L¡A¥i¯à¬O¤ß«æ§a¡HL¥ý¥Í³º¤@´§¸¨ªÅ¡C¡uºC¤@ÂI¡A¤£n«æ¡I¡vCaddie¦b¤@®Ç²¤¥[´£¿ô¡A¦ý¬OL¥ý¥Í¦A´§¡A«o¶È«õ°_¤F¤@¯ó¥Ö¡A²y³s°Ê³£¨S°Ê¡C¨SÃö«Y¡A¦A¨Ó¤@±ì¡IÁ`ºâ§â²yÀ»¥X¡C
¡@¦Ó¤@®ÇªºH¨k«Ä¦ü¥G´N¤ñL¥ý¥Í©¯¹B¡A¤@±ì§Y§â²yÀ»¸¡C²y¸ªº°ª¨Ç¡A¦b¥ú½u¼vÅT¤U¡A¥uÅ¥¨ì¸¨¦aÁn¡A«o¬Ý¤£¨ì¸¨¦aÂI¡C
¡@Ä~Äò©¹«e¨«¡AÁÙ¬O§ä¤£¨ìH¨k«Äªº²y¡ACaddie¥u¦n½ÐH¨k«Ä¦bªþªñ¸É¤@Áû¡C¡u²yÁÙ°÷¶Ü¡H¡vCaddie¡A¤S¸É¤W¤@¥y´£¿ô¡C¬°¤F²Ä¤@¦¸¤W²y³õ¡A¥L̨C¤H³£¦³20Áû²y³Æ¥Î¡A§Æ±æÁÙ¯à°÷¥Î¡I
¡@ªñ500½Xªø«×ªº²Ä1¬}¹ï¥L̦Ө¥¡A§Ï©»¬O»»»·ªº¸ô³~¡A¦]¬°¥§¡¨C±ì¤£¨ì100½Xªº±À¶i³t«×¤Î¸É²y¡B±Ï²yµ¥¡AÅý¤H¤£¸T«ä¦Ò¤@Ó·s¤âªºµ¦²¤¡G¬JµMÁÙÃø´x´¤¤ì±ì»P²yªº¤è¦V¡B¶ZÂ÷¡AÁÙ¤£¦p¦Ñ¦Ñ¹ê¹ê¥ÎÅK±ì¥H¦w¥þ¥´ªk«e¶i¡A¤]³\±ì¼ÆÁÙ¯à¤Ö¨Ç¡C
¡@¤WªGÀ«e¡AH¨k«Äµo²{¤F¥Lªº²Ä¤@Áû²y¡Aì¨Ó¨S¦³±¼¤J¤s¨¦¡A¦Ó¬O¥d¦bÃä½tªº¾ðÃä¡CªGÀ¡AÁ`ºâÅܱo¶ZÂ÷¥i¿Ë¤F¡A¥u¬O¡A³o²Õ¤H¨Ó¨ìªGÀ«e20½X¥ª¥k®É¡A«o¤S°±¨B±r«Þ¤F¡C¡]©ú¤é«ÝÄò¡^
£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j£j
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ºô¸ô´§±ì¡A´N¬ÝLookgolf¡I
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡mù¶}°ªº¸¤Ò¹q¤l³ø¡nª©Åv©Ò¦³¡A¥¼¸g³\¥i½Ð¤Å±i¶KÂà¸ü
¡Eù¶}°ªº¸¤Ò¡G
http://www.lookgolf.com
¡EªA°È«H½c¡G
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
¡E³sµ¸¹q¸Ü¡G¡]02¡^2651-6797
bookmarks (was Re: Internationalization and the IETF)
At 09:06 AM 12/7/00 -0600, Robert G. Ferrell wrote: I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of Internet message addressing is done automatically through the use of bookmarks/hyperlinks or email address books, anyway. This line of reasoning has shown up regularly for 20 years, or so. Yes, before the web. The claim, then, was about email address book dominance. However much such point-and-click mechanisms get used, there remains the need for human-to-human, non-electronic transfer of addresses, be they email or web, on billboards, business cards, and the like. If we did not already have very wide-scale use of ascii, it might be worth considering numerals as the common form. But that wide-scale use is everywhere. The entire point behind the IDN effort is to let communities use domain names in a form that is particularly comfortable for that community. This does not eliminate a "common" form; nor does it show up any particular deficiencies of ascii as that form, nor benefits of digits as the form. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg Consulting www.brandenburg.com Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
end to end (Re: Will Language Wars Balkanize the Web?)
At 06:21 PM 12/6/00 +, Graham Klyne wrote: BTW, the basic tenet of end-to-end connectivity of data and services is, I think, satisfied by the IP layer. Part of my question was about the extent to which this end-to-end-ness needs to be duplicated at higher layers. Not sure whether this is a distraction -- hence the modified Subject -- but I do NOT consider an end-to-end mechanism at one level to be sufficient, when talking about end-to-end at another level. Lower layers must support the e2e requirements of the layer under discussion, but those lower layers do not satisfy the requirements by themselves. If the layer under discussion, in this case the DNS application, does not support e2e, then the fact that IP does does not buy much. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg Consulting www.brandenburg.com Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
Speaker counts (Re: Internationalization and the IETF)
At 15:09 07/12/2000 -0600, Matt Crawford wrote: If the world had asked you or me to design an international language, I think either of us would have done better. Don't be too sure. Even today, there are no more speakers of Esperanto than of Mayan. Take care. The SIL Ethnologue claims that the Mayan language family has 68 different languages as members, with Maya (Yuteco, Peninsula Maya) spoken by 700.000 speakers in Mexico "according to a 1990 census". http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/countries/Mexi.html#YUA According to the Esperanto FAQ at http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq-5.html, quoting the "world almanac and book of facts", the best guess for the number of Esperanto speakers in the world is approximately 2 million. Harald -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 41 44 29 94 Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
