Re: [idn] Comments on protocol drafts

[C C Magnus Gustavsson <mag@lysator.liu.se>]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> >More importantly, it's completely unnecessary.
> 
> One of the requirements that most people have agreed on is to do the 
> minimum damage to protocols that rely on DNS. Many of those have assumed 
> ASCII. The word "completely" above seems a bit of an overstatement.

I don't think so and refer to my previous posting on this matter.

> If you are proposing this requirement for bandwidth/memory reasons, you
> may want to justify it with real numbers.

If the encoding is exactly the same for all languages except European for
which it is a lot better, I don't really see the need.

> For non-European scripts (that is, the majority of the world),

Yes, but know also that the native speakers of European languages are more
than the speakers of Chinese and roughly three times as many as the native
speakers of English.

> Either way, it doesn't seem that encoding length is nearly as much of a 
> technical issue as breaking DNS-reliant protocols.

Well, do we want to take the cludge discussion now or save it until later?

/Magnus