[idn] RE: An idn protocolfor consideration in making the req uirements

[Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se>]

I will cheerfully be open-minded to any proposal that
"works" *both* in Ned's sense ("no protocol mishaps"?)
*and* my sense:

	User sees only (ever): human selected fallback
	domain names or internationalised domain names in
	a commonly accepted and globally viable plain text
	encoding (which are: UTF-8, UTF-16). Plus, of
	course, fulfillment of Ned's sense of "works" too.

Maybe that is a 'strong' statement, but without such a
goal we may very likely get a 'solution' that will lead 
to problems that a) there is no end to, and b) some think
aren't problems no matter how problematic they are.

The no-too-positive experience with using application
specific encodings that are reencodings into ASCII,
i.e., QP and BASE64 for text, must be taken into account.

For (non-plain) text, rather than domain names, reencoding
into some other encoding does not hurt *so much*, *if* that
is done in a framework that is not so very limited to one area
of use of text. E.g. XML based documents, where things like
'€' *may* occur.  But then  a) this is source code in a
markup language, of, by now, fairly general acceptance,
and b) requires quite sophisticated parsing to (thereafter)
be properly interpreted at all anyway. None of this applies
to domain names (as *names*; the *handling* of them for their
purpose is no doubt sophisticated).

If we loose sight of the 'end user', and what he/she will 
face (in the short and long run), then we have also lost
sight of why domain names should be internationalised.

Of course, I can only speak for myself, but I try too
strongly consider the 'end users's' interests here.
I'm not sure if that counts as a 'bias', but even if it
does, I'll be happy to maintain it.  It is, after all, 
in order to try to satisfy end user requirements that
we here do try to internationalise domain names.

I'm not sure if your last paragraph refers to me
walking away (who cares ;-) or me scaring others off.
But neither of those was my intent.  My intent is to
try to speak for the end users (as best I can) and to
promote the generation of solutions that end users will
not consider to be strange or problematic.

		Kind regards
		/kent k


> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Seng [mailto:jseng@pobox.org.sg]
...
> > Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
> > Permanently targeting a reencoding into ASCII (like CIDNUC
> > or UTF-5) is completely unacceptable from my point of view.
> > If that is the end result of this WG, I would consider this
> > WG to have failed and only come up with a problematic cludge
> > that defies the intent of internationalisation.
> 
> I think that is a pretty strong statement to make.
> 
> Once again, let me remind everyone that our charter here is
> set a guideline and more important to collect different
> proposals. We are NOT setting a standard track.
> 
> Therefore, it is at least in my intention (i cant speak for
> Marc for this) to ensure this WG takes an open mind approach
> to ANY proposal without bias to anyone or implementation 
> irregardless of any encoding.
> 
> I expected there are many other proposals which will come to
> the WG in near future and I am sure there are some which you
> will hate it to the guts (if not you, someone else). But do 
> try to take a more open minded approach.
> 
> It will be very disappointing to see people who are trying to
> working on a IDN solution walking away from IETF. IMHO, that
> would be the failing of the WG.
> 
> -James Seng
>