Q1 is mapping on lookup permanent or transitional?

[LB]

2009/4/1 Erik van der Poel <erikv at google.com>:
> Another goal is to avoid forcing the user to type
> lower-case, when ASCII users have never been forced to type
> lower-case. So, software must do the mapping, and therefore the
> protocol must require it.

It is obvious that this is in contradiction semantics for languages
such as French. This goal forces the francophonie to a separate
system. This was perfectly understood these last days, since the WG
does not concern itself with the support of the writing of French, and
does not allow the management of the total naming space by area
managers. These two points are the first two requirements of cultural
empowerment, as generally understood by French Thought.

This imposed separate system should take account of remarks by John
Klensin and decisions of managers of areas, without seeking for
reasons of technical details of the Internet strata to reduce the
capacity of the Intersem strata (semiotics, linguistics,
multilinguistics, orthography).

In return, the naming system compatible with the French language (and
probably many others) that the WG, and the positions taken during and
after San Francisco, now require (we hoped to avoid), should have a
flexibility that leaves each area manager (or group of area managers)
the flexibility to adapt to the constraints of IDNA2008 when
interfacing is required at the application level (since the server is
not concerned).

----
LB
france at large