KATS (Korean Agency for Technology and Standards)'s Comments on theUnicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft

[JFC Morfin]

100% agreement.
All these specific cases are like making provisions in the TCP/IP 
protocol depending on the Operating System being used by the ends.
Protocol should only address generic cases of conflict.
jfc

At 17:01 31/10/2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>Dear colleagues,
>
>On 31-Oct-08, at 8:51 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> >
> > that train has long since left the station. Since the 11K syllables
> > are sufficient (burden of proof on those who believe otherwise) they
> > and they alone should be permitted in Korean IDN.
>
>I believe I understand the example in this case, and I believe I
>understand the KATS statement as well.  But none of these appear to me
>to have answered the fundamental question I had before, which is why
>these exceptions should be in the _protocol_.  They sound to me like
>policy.
>
>Even if only the 11k syllables "alone should be permitted in Korean
>IDN", it does not follow that any of the codepoints that are the
>subject of this discssion should be excluded at the protocol level.
>
>I am particularly uneasy with arguments that depend either on
>confusability or on the way that one could have encoded these
>characters in Unicode, if one ran the circus.  This working group
>explicitly ruled the first of those premises out in its charter.  The
>working group's dependence on properties explicitly requires that we
>accept the Unicode definitions.  Even if we think things should be
>another way, we're not here to specify The Right Way to encode the
>writing system of a language.  We're here to "internationalize LDH".
>
>That one can do nasty and unpleasant things with "iLDH" is plain.  One
>can also do such nasty things with plain LDH, although not as many.
>This is why operators of zones need to have clear policies for their
>zones, and why (in my opinion) we ought to be encouraging a default of
>"disallow".
>
>What I believe we should _not_ do is try selectively to include policy
>in the protocol.  For the most part, I believe the current documents
>have done a good job in that direction.  I believe that if we begin
>now to DISALLOW characters on the grounds of confusability or likely
>utility, we're confusing protocol and policy.  I think if we're going
>to do that, we should look again at the foundation principles of the
>current work, and perhaps revisit some decisions that I, at least, had
>hoped were closed.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Andrew
>
>--
>Andrew Sullivan
>ajs at shinkuro.com
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update