Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050104192530.0d9dfb80@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:35:42 +0100
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>,
	John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050104175239.GB4957@skunk.reutershealth.com>
References: <20050102035503.67030621E0@eikenes.alvestrand.no>
	<200501040938.55067.blilly@erols.com>
	<DD345C015189663441CBB81D@scan.jck.com>
	<20050104175239.GB4957@skunk.reutershealth.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed;
	x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7F11382D
Cc: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: IDN and language
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

John,
you confuse scripting and languages in here. ccTLD defines the scripting 
tables they accept for a language. The Draft is acceptable if the 
information it conveys is for the information of the applications which may 
use it (I do not see many which may be happy with it on the long range). It 
is not acceptable if it wants to impose its paucerty and rigidity to 
everyone. Now as a French registrant I do not know what is the French 
character set that AFNIC could use. As a  French speaking ccTLD Registry 
Manager I may file another one. Again the problem is the confusion. What 
are we talking about?

There is an increased feeling that this confusion is on purpose. To favor 
en-ascii and to patent proprietary solutions on top of the RFC 3066 bis 
"standard" in order to address users real needs. I doubt this will fly as a 
"consensus".

jfc



At 18:52 04/01/2005, John Cowan wrote:

>John C Klensin scripsit:
>
> > Returning to the DNS/IDN situation, ICANN has created a
> > recommendation for all TLDs, and a requirement on at least some
> > gTLDs, that languages not be mixed within a label and for
> > registration and use of tables similar to those recommended by
> > RFC 3743.
>
>This regulation is going to be completely unenforceable, since with a
>few exceptions (hexagonal French), languages do not have bright-line
>rules saying what words they do and do not contain.  Are we to be in
>the position of saying that eigenvector.com may be registered (and is)
>because the word appears in dictionaries, whereas eigenevent.com is
>ruled out because it "mixes" English and German?
>
>Forbidding the mixing of scripts is another matter, although in fact
>some languages are written using more than one (Unicode) script.
>
>--
>"And it was said that ever after, if any                John Cowan
>man looked in that Stone, unless he had 
>a               jcowan@reutershealth.com
>great strength of will to turn it to other              www.ccil.org/~cowan
>purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering           www.reutershealth.com
>in flame."   --"The Pyre of Denethor"
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages