Re: [idn] case folding

[Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>]

At/À 09:56 2000-05-31 -0400, Leslie Daigle you wrote/vous écriviez:

>Let me run out in front of the firing line and make a couple of
>observations:
>
>"Brian W. Spolarich" wrote:
> > Is it possible to come up with a case-folding implementation
> > that is going to satisfy the behavioural expectations of the large
> > majority of the users?  I am mostly ignorant of these issues as they apply
> > to the the vast majority of languages, but given the issues that have been
> > raised here, I have to wonder if this is practically achievable.
>
>I strongly agree that predicting behaviour/expectations is a lousy
>way to build a protocol.
>
>However, if we say that there is no case folding/canonicalization
>(except perhaps for US-ASCII, for backwards compatibility), then
>
>         LeChatÉmerveillant.com  and
>         lechatémerveillant.com

and all other possible combinations:
LEChatÉmerveillant.com
lEChatémerveillant.com
...

a lot of combinations...



>are distinct, registrable strings.
>
>Which should I pick to register, in order to offer my customers
>the least astonishment?
>
>And we know that ICANN gets involved when my competitor registers
>the alternate form.
>
>The point is, if we don't define (i.e., point to) the appropriate
>rules for determining equivalence of character strings (NOT semantics),
>then it will get sorted out in courts of law -- probably differently
>in different jurisdictions.  And I don't think that serves the
>PLA.
>
>I think there are 2 separate issues here:
>
>         . rules for determining equivalence (aka partitions)
>           so that once one string gets registered in a TLD, the
>           other strings in the same partition are "off-limits"

interesting point. This can be in the registration space, where the 
registration protocol between the registries will handle that: i.e. when a 
registration is done, the possible combinations are avoided by the 
registries. Not sure we can rely on this, but...

Marc.

>
>         . rules for determining equivalence on the fly
>
>They are both addressed by "canonicalization", if there is a single
>set of acceptable rules (and people keep pointing to the UNICODE
>consortium for such), although the arguments I've seen to date
>suggest that these are difficult to update/apply on the fly -- which
>is why I separate out the issue of handling this stuff 'on the wire'.
>
>Leslie.
>
>--
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>"My body obeys Aristotelian laws of physics."
>    -- ThinkingCat
>
>Leslie Daigle
>leslie@thinkingcat.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------


Marc Blanchet
Viagénie inc.
tel: 418-656-9254
http://www.viagenie.qc.ca

----------------------------------------------------------
Normos (http://www.normos.org): Internet standards portal:
IETF RFC, drafts, IANA, W3C, ATMForum, ISO, ... all in one place.