Re: [idn] Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

<idn@ops.ietf.org>,
        "Vinton G. Cerf" <vcerf@mci.net>, Masanobu Katoh
<mkatoh@mkatoh.net>,
        John klensin <klensin@jck.com>, harald <harald@alvestrand.no>,
        Fred baker <fred@cisco.com>, Stuart Lynn <lynn@icann.org>,
        Paul Haffman <phoffman@imc.org>,
        Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi <sharil@cmc.gov.my>,
        JET Members <jet-member@nic.ad.jp>, Thomas Narten
<narten@us.ibm.com>,
        Erik Nordmark <nordmark@eng.sun.com>,
        Andrew McLaughlin <ajm@icann.org>, "H. T. Kung"
<htk@eecs.harvard.edu>,
        Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>,
        James Seng/Personal <jseng@pobox.org.sg>,
        Masanobu Katoh <mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com>,
        Mouhamet Diop <mouhamet@next.sn>, Patrik F?lstr?m
<paf@cisco.com>,
        Qiheng Hu <qhhu@public.bta.net.cn>,
        Sang-Hyon Kyong <shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr>,
        Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>,
        hlqian <hlqian@cnnic.net.cn>, mao <mao@cnnic.net.cn>,
        Zhang Wen Hui  <whzhang@cnnnic.net.cn>, xiang deng
<deng@cnnic.net.cn>,
        xiaodong lee  <lee@whale.cnnic.net.cn>,
        "=?Big5?B?dHNlbmdsbUCtcLr0pKSk3y6kpKRqLnR3?="
<tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw>,
        hoho <hoho@iis.sinica.edu.tw>, Kenny Huang
<huangk@alum.sinica.edu>,
        Chun-Hsin Wu <wuch@gate.sinica.edu.tw>, sstseng
<sstseng@twnic.net.tw>,
        Wen-Sung Chen <wschen@twnic.net.tw>, Nai-Wen Hsu
<snw@twnic.net.tw>,
        yktham <yktham@umac.mo>, jasonho  <jasonho@umac.mo>,
        alanysho <alanysho@hkdnr.net.hk>,
        christine  <christine.tsang@hkdnr.net.hk>
In-Reply-To: <3C5A6DAE.9040905@twnic.net.tw>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

At 06:27 PM 2/1/2002 +0800, Erin Chen wrote:
>But, the architecture of IDN defined in above four documents does not
>solve the traditional and simplified Chinese character variant problem.

There are many things the IDN specifications do not do.  Rather, the
specifications focus on solving satisfying only the requirement they are
supposed to satisfy.

Solution of TC/SC is one example of equivalence among Unicode
sets.  Indeed, IDN does not attempt to specify such
equivalences.  Equivalence among separate Unicode sets is essentially an
open technical topic for which there are no accepted practises.

Still, this topic has been discussed, debated and explained extensively
within the IDN working group.  .

The purpose of IDN is to permit use of an increased range of characters
in
domain name, beyond the current limit of ASCII.  It is not the goal of
the
working group to invent character set conventions such as equivalence
between different sets.

It will be wonderful when equivalence between sets is achieved.  However
it
is not the charter of IDN to solve basic issues of character set
equivalence and it is not reasonable to delay the utility of the
character
set enhancement specified by IDN, in the hope that some day the question
of
character set equivalence is achieved.

Contrary to the claim that the working group is moving too quickly, my
own
guess is that it has been a major source of delay for the working group
for
at least 6 months.  Perhaps much longer.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464