Re: [idn] KRNIC position paper

[James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

While joking around with David and Mark in Korea (yea I know it is kind of
difficult to get serious with David), the conversation goes something like
this....

"Lets just redefine 'octet' as 32-bit. It solve all problems!"
"Wait, why stop at 32? Lets go all the way to 128bits."
"Yep, just like IPv6." :)

Anyway, both KRNIC and JPNIC brought up some very good points. I think this is
going to be interesting meeting :) See you all at tomorrow meeting.

-James Seng

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> A very clear and reasonable position paper, pointing out a number of
> places where the requirements document could be clearer. Thank you!
> 
> One comment:
> 
> At 07:08 25.03.00 +0900, GIM Gyeongseog-KIM Kyongsok wrote:
> >4. whether to adopt short- or mid-range solution for IDN?
> >   We can think of three different solutions:
> >   a) short-range solution: 7-bit with some encoding;
> >   b) mid-range solution: e.g., 8-bit/UTF-8
> >   c) long-range solution: UCS without any transofrmation
> 
> Note that *all* representations of the UCS are, in some sense, transformations.
> The choice here, given ISO 10646 as base character set, is between UTF-8,
> UTF-16 (2-3 flavours) and UTF-32 (some flavors) for bits transported on the
> wire.
> 
> So the question is whether there is reason to switch from "midrange"
> solution to some other transformation at a later date.
> 
>                Harald
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no