jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon May 26 10:52:13 CEST 2008
At 20:05 25/05/2008, John C Klensin wrote:
>If there are other organizational proposals, I wish someone would
>start formulating them and sharing them with the rest of us.
I think we have a problem with RFC 3935 considering English as an
element of security for the IETF technology. This is in line with the
IDNA conception retaining English ASCII as the core of the system.
However, IDNA should deploy in a multilingual environment as well. I
would therefore suggest that we retain the minimum English verbosity
in the Protocol and Tables parts, to simplify translations and
insure a clear understanding of the translated texts.
I am ready to cooperate in applying an ISO approach and working on a
parallel version in French. ISO experience shows that it leads to
much clearer and terser English texts. Very often ISO translations in
other languages are also based upon the French version considered as
more precise. This create a problem when there is a better French
wording due to the value added by the ISO translators that has not
been fed-back to then closed English speaking working group. Due to
the importance of IDNA in the Asian part of the world, I would also
suggest that a similar parallel version in Chinese and/or Japanese
is/are also worked out. There is a multilinguistics rule we
identified that when working in parallel on a document using several
languages semantics mutually refine and pragmatics mutually filter.
More information about the Idna-update