[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: General internationalization
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: General internationalization
- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:25:03 -0800
- Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:26:07 -0800
- Envelope-to: email@example.com
At 04:20 PM 1/17/00 +0800, James Seng wrote:
>Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> > Implementation must specify what character
> > sets are used and how these characters are encoded in the DNS names
> > and records.
> > This is bad. I strongly disagree that there is a *requirement* for
> > multiple character sets or encodings. Those who feel that this is a
> > requirement should say why it is so. I believe that adding "All" to the
> > beginning of the first sentence is sufficient.
>Ok, i think it is bad phrasing. I do not mean there is a requirement for
>multiple character sets or encodings. What I intent to mean is there should
>not be a requirement to reject multiple character sets. However, each
>character sets are defined properly if multiple are used.
OK, I think I follow. I propose the following replacement:
The implementation may specify a single or multiple character sets as long
as the use of either does not go against the other requirements in this
> > Must allow I18C in DNS RR response.
> > I don't know what an "RR response" is.
>Resource Record. e.g A, CNAME, MX etc.
I think it is a bad idea for us to be requiring changes to something as
basic as DNS responses.
> > I18N of domain names should be able to handle mix language characters
> > and script, within the same label and/or within the same FQDN.
> > [JS: I hear at least one strong objections to this]
> > Yes, you hear right. I do not see a requirement for language tagging
> > in internationalized names. Can you say why this is required?
>Mix language need not be handled by language tagging. There are other ways to
>do it, for example, if you are using Unicode, then it comes very naturely you
>can mix European languages and East Asia language within the same label
>without any tagging.
This is a mess. If what you mean is "characters from a mixture of scripts",
you should say so. In the i18n arena, "language" does *not* mean "script".
See <http://www.imc.org/mail-i18n.html> for a discussion of the different
terms as they are commonly used in the IETF. (BTW, this is *not* a
definitive paper, but there was general agreement on the terminology used.)
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium