RE: [idn] NSI Multilingual Testbed Information (fwd)

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

Bill,
- utf8 is effectively a good candidate for idn. As an example, many idn 
proposals use it.
- utf8 is effectively preferred in general for ietf protocols
- so I would say that unless there is technical issues regarding the use of 
utf8 for idn or technical reasons regarding a better encoding for idn, 
there is a good possibility that utf8 is going to be used in the standard.
- but there is also a possibility that others will be used. if, for 
example, utf3000 is defined and found as the best for idn as a wg 
concensus, then we will push it!
- and the choice of encoding/transformation is probably simpler than many 
other issues that we have on our table.

So, can we move on to those other issues?

Regards, Marc.

At/À 20:58 2000-08-26 -0400, J. William Semich you wrote/vous écriviez:
>Let me put this another way:
>
>The IETF has taken two identifiable actions WRT UTF-8:
>
>1. It has designated UTF-8 as the preferred protocol for IDN in the BCP,
>RFC 2277 (No matter whether used in a Standard or in a BCP, the word "MUST"
>looks like strong language to me);
>
>2. It has actually set a standard for (or has put on a standards track)
>UTF-8 itself under RFC 2279.
>
>I have not been able to find any actions by IETF WRT an ACE for IDN, either
>as a stand-alone Standard in and of itself, or as a recommended protocol
>(not to mention a "MUST") in a BCP.
>
>So, apart from the fact that UTF-8 has much to recommend it technically for
>use in IDNs, is it so surprising that the decision would be made to use
>UTF-8 in the protocol when developing an implementation of IDN?
>
>Bill Semich
>.NU Domain
>
>At 07:12 PM 8/26/00 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >At 18:20 26/08/00, J. William Semich wrote:
> >
> >>Semantics aside, if the IESG is applying these policies,
> >
> >        There is no evidence to support a claim that IESG is requiring
> >use of UTF-8 in all cases.  The RFC does NOT say that its required
> >in all cases, it makes a suggestion, not a hard requirement.
> >Policies have exceptions, by definition.  This is part of the
> >reason it is a BCP, not a standard.
> >
> >        UTF-8 is one choice.  It might be a reasonable choice.
> >It is not mandated by the IESG or IETF at this time for IDNs.
> >Please support your use of UTF-8 on technical grounds (I'm sure
> >you have these), rather than trying to twist the meaning of the
> >RFC on UTF-8 and making some sort of political/policy argument.
> >
> >>then, as a
> >>developer, these are the policies upon which I should base my code - one of
> >>which is a "MUST" on support for UTF-8 in the protocol.
> >
> >        You have more choices about how to base your code than you
> >acknowledge above, while still being fully consistent with the
> >RFC on UTF-8.
> >
> >        I'll also echo Paul's comments.  This is an IETF list.
> >Please use IETF terminology regarding the status of IETF RFCs
> >on IETF lists.  That RFC is a BCP, not any sort of standard.
> >Claiming otherwise repeatedly does not by itself change reality.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >
> >Ran
> >rja@inet.org
> >
> >
> >


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.