UTC Agenda Item: IDNA proposal

[Vint Cerf]

Though a rank layman in this matter, starting with a restricted set and
opening it up as it appears to be feasible strikes me as a prudent step.
Getting linguists involved has benefit and risk. It would be quite easy to
argue strongly that every character is needed for full expressiveness - such
an argument would likely stem from a serious lack of appreciation both of
the DNS itself and the potential destructive interference of various
characters drawn from distinct languages. I would assume, perhaps wrongly,
that some linguistic experts would not necessarily be aware of the lookalike
problems or even care about them if they know of them, in the absence of the
context of DNS use in URLs, email addresses and the like. 

Vint
 


Vinton G Cerf
Chief Internet Evangelist
Google
Regus Suite 384
13800 Coppermine Road
Herndon, VA 20171
 
+1 703 234-1823
+1 703-234-5822 (f)
 
vint at google.com
www.google.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no
[mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Yangwoo Ko
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:47 PM
To: Sam Vilain
Cc: idna-update at alvestrand.no; Patrik Fältström; John C Klensin
Subject: Re: UTC Agenda Item: IDNA proposal


Sam Vilain wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>> The reason that most of the Indic scripts have been _temporarily_ 
>> excluded is that the Indian Government and several collections of the 
>> right sort of linguists are examining this work and, unlike some of 
>> the generalizations above, doing so with relatively full 
>> understanding of the constraints involved.
>> We would like them to advise us (and, ideally, UTC) on the right set 
>> of handling requirements to meet their needs and that of the DNS, so 
>> that rules can be established based on their advice, rather than 
>> making up rules and then trying to fit either the rules or their 
>> advice into each other in a style that would make Procrustean beds 
>> feel comfortable and flexible.
> 
> Thanks John, that's useful, glad to see it's not as bad as I thought.
> 
> However I still think that the "default" policy for scripts, until 
> some reliable word comes from a reasonable representative, should be 
> permissive, unless they are specifically suspected to have problems...

As you understand, it is fairly troublesome to make domain labels
invalidated later. Thus, restrictive approach seems to be a lot better to
me.

Regards
_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update