Comments on IDNA Bidi

[JFCM]

At 11:40 16/01/2008, Cary Karp wrote:
>"Display" strikes me as the more objective term (being an attribute of
>what the machine does), to which "visual" is a cognitive correlate
>(being in the mind of the beholder).

I agree. When you enter a name on a keyboard, this is the display 
order. When you read it on an ad, this is the visual order. Unicode 
is a standard to manage the display order (printing). IDNA wants to 
use it in a visual order (the order used to register it). This 
creates several impossibilities to address the DNS, zone 
administrators, security, etc. needs, including because the same 
visual may correspond to several display codes or even sequences and 
therefore orders.

The only DNS needs are a unique registration order and a unique 
registration correspondance between display and visual. Bidi is a no 
problem once the direction is set (it results from the display order 
qualias [position and left to right or right to left]).

This leaves us with two plans:
- plan IDNA, to best use the current Unicode oriented proposition on 
a temporary basis, that countries and semantic addressing can use now.
- plan IDNB, to devise a universal visual sign secured set 
interoperable with ISO 10646 and a conversion from that UV3S to ASCII 
that can be consistently used in every semiotic applications, and at 
International Network presentation layer (that we also have to devise 
and implement).

Why to support the idea of a single authoritative root, so the same 
ASCII DN resolves the same IP everywhere, if the same U-label does 
not resolve first to the A-label for ever?
jfc