<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Jean-michel,<div><br></div><div>I consider this discussion to be outside the scope of the working group. In my opinion, the IDNA architecture has already been decided, based on the constraints of the DNS itself. The direction you and others associated with Jefsey want to pursue leads toward a re-design of DNS itself. I am not arguing against a serious consideration of such a thing, only that I don't consider it appropriate for the IDNABIS discussion.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>vint</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Jul 1, 2009, at 8:44 AM, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Dear Mr. Cerf,<br>may be could you set-up this mailing list yourself as part of the WG? The reason why is that this is not a theorical but an architectural discussion. As Elisabeth documents it, it will decide of the IDNA architecture. The worst situation would be that a discussion list you called for as a Chair, would conflict with this WG. <br> <br>Best<br>Jean-Michel A. Bernier de Portzamparc<br><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div>Folks, <div><br></div><div>this discussion is not going to get us closer to agreement on the remaining task: selection of the set of characters that should undergo some kind of mapping prior to lookup in the DNS.</div> <div><br></div><div>Could I suggest that parties interested in this theoretical discussion move it to a private distribution list while the WG focuses on finalizing the mapping choices?</div><div><br></div><div>thanks</div> <div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>vint</div></font><div><div></div><div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Elisabeth Blanconil wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">I understand this. But I am refering to entropy as "a loss of information", as per Shannon and John. Now, I am not a mathematician here: I am a semantician. This because we precisely reach here (and this is the entire problem) the limits of mathematics. If we could quantify the entropy we could restore the initial information in restoring the corresponding negentropy.<br> <br>The problem we face is that mapping introduce a non quantifiable entropy. We definitly enter mathematical chaos field through the entropic succession which chains possible semantic misunderstandings. <br><br>Varela (knowledge), Thom (mathematics), Cullioli (linguistics), Morin (complex thinking), Von Bertalanffy (systems) etc. identify linguistics, semantics and pragmatics as the most complex knowlege field. Here we play with hortotypography with an impact on semantic within different contexts. For those not familiar with chaos and catastrophy theories or complex thinking this is like the Lorentz's butterfly in Tokyo. You change a majuscule into a minuscule (French orthotypography) or an upper case into a lower case (English orthotypography) and you do not the global impact (it can be nill, most probably it will change the world, cf. Chaitin and co.). This is exactly the same as any other phishing: to make someone trust what he should not.<br> <br>Elisabeth Blanconil<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/7/1 Eric Brunner-Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" target="_blank">ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Any phrasing is possible. Some mean less than others. One of my co-workers was tempted to use "entropy" in a policy document recently. I prefer not to use the word unless the "entropy" asserted to exist can be stated as a mathematical formula. If you could make that attempt, it would be helpful. Users deserve statements that purport to "explain" which are factually correct.<br> <br> Eric<br> <br> Elisabeth Blanconil wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> 2009/6/30 "Martin J. Dürst" <<a href="mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp" target="_blank">duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp" target="_blank">duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp</a>>><div> <div></div><div><br> <br> A case mapping is also a 'loss of information', but one that<br> people clearly want.<br> <br> <br> Could we not phrase this differently ? Case mapping may be considered only if it does not represent a loss of information. Otherwise should we not name it "case and entropy mapping" to explain users where entropy occurs.<br> <br> Elisabeth Blanconil<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br></div></div> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<div><br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> Idna-update mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br> <a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br> <br> </div></blockquote> <br> <br> </blockquote></div><br> _______________________________________________<br>Idna-update mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br> <a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br> Idna-update mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br> <a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br> <br></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>