[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] UTC feedback
- To: Keith Moore <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [idn] UTC feedback
- From: RJ Atkinson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:05:28 -0400
- Cc: email@example.com
- Delivery-date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:11:10 -0700
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
At 15:51 21/08/00, Keith Moore wrote:
>I don't see any way to make the registration rules "global" without
>imposing some language's assumptions on users of other languages
>which do not share those assumptions. and that IMHO is not acceptable.
None the less, this WG had previously agreed earlier this year
that we needed to have the same canonicalisation/normalisation rules
apply all over in order to be interoperable.
You would pose the question of whether we want to interoperate
globally or not. I believe the answer of that has to be that
global interoperability is mandatory, not negotiable.
By the way, precisely which language that you personally use
is being adversely impacted by the matter of global rules
or local rules for normalisation/canonicalisation ?
>some things need to be global and universal - request and response
>formats, normalization, canonicalization, and the name tree itself.
How to handle accent marks is inherently part of
normalisation/canonicalisation. So you are agreeing with me.
>but some decisions - like who gets to register which names within
>a zone and which names are in conflict with others - are inherently
>part of the policy of the registry for that zone.
You're confused. "which names are in conflict" is really a matter
of how the canonicalisation/normalisation rules are defined. Above
you say that is globally defined. Here you indicate it is not.
Please be consistent with yourself.
I think you really aren't following what canonicalisation/normalisation
mean in the context of IDNs. In the interest of reducing the list
traffic, I'll be ignoring all your email on this topic for a while.