<html>
<body>
At 21:12 28/01/2009, Mark Davis wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">But mappings like lowercase,
fullwidth, etc are different. </blockquote><br>
<font size=2>Unless we make it completely clear that IDNA2008 is a
temporary Internet Degraded Name Arbitration that temporarily blocks
mapping for security reasons during the transition to a DNS.2, which will
fully support every typography. As users, we certainly oppose this
entirely, but we also have to be pragmatic. If these degraded names are
what our WG can propose in the present DNS context, a sound, reduced
proposition is better than a flawed solution. <br><br>
At this stage, IMHO we should only target what Occam and the IETF LC may
agree on. I would like to explain something to you further.<br><br>
<br>
At this time the French Gov has issued an RFP for the replacement
of AFNIC as the ".fr" Manager. france@large will answer that
RFP. As part of the procedure, candidates can pose clarification
questions that the Government will in turn have to answer. IDNA20008
should have been completed by now. Therefore, we (should have asked
questions concerning "Internationalization" within the IDNA2008
framework.<br><br>
IDNA2008 is not completed yet. Therefore, our own IDNA interoperable
architecture perspective could also not have been finalized. We are,
therefore, going to pose our questions with rather little IETF, IAB, or
architectural background about the "Intersem" (Multilingual and
Semantic Internet" related issues. These questions will come from
French users, consumers, corporations, organizations, representatives,
etc.. <br>
By way of consequence, Government responses (or lack of) will affect the
whole francophonie and create a de facto international position, since
".fr" refrained in the past from developing a solely
Anglo-Saxon typography, which the Government would like to see come to an
end. <br><br>
Stephane Bortzmeyer from AFNIC did a good job here. He pointed out some
of the problems that we are facing, but showed reasonably low pressure so
as to not delay the respective problem solving (the solutions to the
discussed mapping cases are good hints for some of our problems).
Furthermore, we (users) cooperated in not objecting to what we consider
as a clear disrespecting of the Charter and of the responsibility,
competence (RFC 3935), and precautionary (cf. my own
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iucg-precaution-00.txt" eudora="autourl">
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iucg-precaution-00.txt</a>)
principle. This was because we fully realized that IDNA cannot, and does
not intent to, bring much more than IDNA2003. and not what we consider
everyone expect (cf. WSIS, IGF, UNESCO, etc positions). James Seng and
the Chair have been very honnest about it.<br><br>
However, the time has come. AFNIC has not been able to deploy the proper
support needed for the French typography as of yet, this being the
present case 31 years after the French international datacommunications
services were opened. Therefore, I presume that the questions that I will
have to list along with the responses that I will thereby obtain (either
directly or indirectly) will be politically based upon the (1) best QoS
for the users (2) precautionary principle in a global context (3)
imaginative architectural alternatives (4) support of the Semantic
Addressing, in which we were delaying our proposition in order to be
certain that it will be IDNA interoperable. <br><br>
One question set will necessarily concern the kind of international
consensus that will support the French Gov responses that we will
publicly receive. <br><br>
Every suggestion that you could make would be _very_ welcome. The
deadline for us is February 7.<br>
Concerning interoperability, I will certainly quote, in appendix to my
questions, this present mail, along with whatever response and Chair
statement that I receive. Obviously the RFP, my questions, and the
responses received will all be in the French language.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
</font></body>
</html>