Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-cjk-00.txt

[RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>]

At 00:36 08/10/00, Frank Ernens wrote:


>SECTION 4 [bis], Vietnamese:
>
>> While Vietnamese also adopted Chinese ideographs ('chu han') and created
>> their own ideographs ('chu nom'), they were now replaced by romanized
>> 'quoc ngu' today. Hence, this document does not attempt to address any
>> issues with 'chu han' or 'chu nom'.
>
>A department of classics in a Vietnamese university (or even a department
>of Vietnamese in a US university) could reasonably expect to use these
>characters in its names. 

However, Vietnamese do NOT reasonably expect to use a totally
dead, archaic written form in Domain Names, which is the quite
narrow topic being discussed here.  They DO expect to be able
to use all Quoc Ngu characters in a Domain Name, which is a
quite reasonable expectation.

>One cannot just dismiss an entire language
>because it happens to have fewer speakers than one's own or one
>doesn't know much about it.

        I've been looking out for Vietnamese in Internet standards
for more than 10 years now.  You are a bit late to this party;
your ad hominem attack on others (quoted directly above) is 
NOT appreciated by folks in this WG and is NOT helpful here.
Stick to the technology issues, please.

        The more general issue that I have with most (all ?) of 
your comments is that they evidence a fundamental misunderstanding 
of the very limited way in which Domain Names are used.  You
make arguments that would be reasonable with respect to a
universal character set used for text processing -- those same
arguments generally do NOT apply to the very narrow uses of
characters for Domain Names.

Ran
rja@inet.org