Re: [idn] Registration rules and Canonicalisation rules

[James Seng <James@Seng.cc>]

Excellent summary :-)

There is a thinline between what is considered character equivalent and
what is lexiconic equivalent. "color" and "colour" is lexiconic hence it
is not. Similar, han folding as I described in the PDF is also a
code-based equivalence.
 
I suggest we stick ourselves to only code or character equivalent and
leave lexiconic and context equivalent (which is beyond any reasonable
machine means) to administration.

-James Seng

Alan Barrett wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Ran and Keith don't seem to be communicating.  Let me see if I can help.
> 
> Keith says that "registration rules" probably cannot be global.  Ran
> says that "canonicalisation/normalisation rules" must be global.  I
> happen to agree with both of them about this, and there's no conflict
> here, because registration rules and canonicalisation rules are not the
> same thing.
> 
> Registration rules are administrative procedures that prohibit one
> person from registering a name that is too similar to a name that
> somebody else has already registered.  A silly example using the
> english/american language would be to say that the names "color" and
> "colour" may not be registered to different people.  A less silly
> example using the french language would be to say that the names "cafe"
> and "caf<e+acute>" may not be registered to different people.
> 
> Canonicalisation rules, in the present context, are rules about
> whether the DNS software thinks that two names (which might initially
> appear to be different) are equivalent.
> 
> It's quite easy to imagine a world in which all DNS software thinks
> that "cafe" and "caf<e+acute>" have different canonical forms, yet
> some registries do and other registries do not permit "cafe" and
> "caf<e+acute>" to be registered to different people.
> 
> --apb (Alan Barrett)