[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-cjk-00.txt
- To: "Frank Ernens" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-cjk-00.txt
- From: "James Seng" <James@Seng.cc>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:28:33 +0800
- Cc: <email@example.com>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:33:15 -0700
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > 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.
> Given that Unicode supports several archaic scripts, they will
> get used, at least for subdomains. It may well be reasonable to
> sacrifice ancient Vietnamese for smoother operation with modern
> Chinese. But AFAIK no-one has said we have decided to do such a
> thing, and the nameprep draft comes close to saying the opposite.
Can you please explain this further? How would ancient Vietnamese suffer
because of modern Chinese? And how nameprep affect this?
> My technical objections to adding new universal folding rules, for
> Han or any other characters, are (i) we aren't able to check that any
> folding rules are workable for all living languages in all
> scripts, (ii) a priority dispute could arise between languages
> which would delay the WG, and (iii) naive users assume existing
> domain names are case-sensitive, suggesting there is really no
> need for "convenient" folding rules.
Once again, no one is proposing a new universal folding rule on Han. I did
once but I have stop my crusade already given how furtile it is. The CJK I-D
is strictly an informational purpose.
> I can see the merits of folding for z-variants (assuming that doesn't
> cause problems for personal names) and for some other non-ideographic
> characters. Maybe it should be done, but first I think we should
> find out why they aren't Unicode compatibility equivalents to start
If han folding is difficult, then zVariant folding is 10x that and bring it to
infinity. (No, I am not saying it cannot be done...we done it but it is
incredible time consuming...)
> > We did not propose any folding.
> The draft says
> % The implicit proposal in this document is that CJKV ideographs may or
> % may not be "folded" for the purposes of comparison of domain names.
> and also
> % In alphabetic scripts, there is also requirement to fold Latin, Greek,
> % Hebrew, Cyrillic, Hebrew and Arabic together. There may be a stronger
> % requirement for CJKV characters.
Correct. "may or may not" and "stronger requirement" are the word I used. We
did not explicitly define any folding rule or mechanism.