[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Character equivalence mapping (was: Re: [idn] SLC minutes)



Hi, John and Edmon

I feel it is interesting to try to find some analogy for fun(!) between famous old Babel Tower story and modern Internet name system history. How about replacing 'Shnar->Internet' and 'brick->computer' and 'bitumen -> network' and 'one language->ASCII domain' ?  Just enjoy reading the next excerpts from Genesis.

"Now the whole earth had one language and few words. And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, 'Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.' And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the LORD said, 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.' So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city.' Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth." (Genesis 11:1-9)

"Babel" is composed of two words, "baa" meaning "gate" and "el," "god." Hence, "the gate of god." A related word in Hebrew, "balal" means "confusion."     (http://www.ldolphin.org/babel.html)

Will IDN  be "the gate of god" or "confusion" to the mankind ?

Soobok Lee

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
To: "Edmon" <edmon@neteka.com>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: Character equivalence mapping (was: Re: [idn] SLC minutes)

> --On Thursday, 03 January, 2002 11:31 -0500 Edmon
> <
edmon@neteka.com> wrote:
>
> >...
> > The domain names as they
> > conceptually exist however should remain user friendly.  In
> > other words, domain names for humans will contain context and
> > meaning (an "ALPHA" will be an "ALPHA" not "A"), but domain
> > names as viewed in the DNS (machine) should be devoid of
> > context.  To bridge these two, a set of equivalent characters
> > are prepared as a table for the machine so that it can blindly
> > treat them as identical without contemplating its context.
>
> But, Edmon, we already have disproofs of this in trademark
> registrations and the registrars claim (and I believe them) that
> the companies involved are anxious to take advantage of
> internationalization to register their trademarks more directly
> in the DNS.  We have organizations who want to be
>   <alpha><roman-i><digits123>
>   toys-<cyrillic-ya>-us
> and so on, a list that will certainly get longer as more
> characters are perceived as available. 
>
> What you are trying to do also involves some rather complex
> judgement calls which I don't know how to make.  As someone who
> is not very familiar with either, I've seen a number of font
> forms of Arabic and Thai that I'm not sure I could tell apart,
> at least without considerable context.  I would assume that
> daily users of the two scripts wouldn't have that problem, but
> who is to make the decision about equivalence?
>
> It seems to me that there, in practice, are only two ways to get
> what you want without ambiguity or confusion.  One goes down the
> path that Ken points out, which results, ultimately, in
> "equivalencing" some very different things.  And the other is to
> say "ok, we will add characters to the LDH list, but only those
> characters that cannot be confused with anything else,
> regardless of the case or font used".  Maybe, in the long term,
> they turn out to be the same option.
>
> It would have the advantage of adding many useful characters to
> the DNS-application-permitted set (and Harald and Patrik could
> stop worrying about the names of their respective sons :-)), but
> it would do almost nothing for internationalization other than
> throwing us back into strange transliterations or transpositions
> for many scripts.   Put differently, we would end up with a DNS
> character set that would probably support Latin-1 and Han
> characters properly, but maybe nothing else.  I don't find that
> very satisfying, much as I am concerned about accurate
> transcription of labels from printed form into the DNS.
>
>      john
>
>
>