Q1 is mapping on lookup permanent or transitional?
renardinr at gmail.com
Fri Apr 3 02:01:44 CEST 2009
there is no more need to oppose any IDNA2008 proposition. They decided to
under-support French (and other Latin) languages. As discussed during the
March 31 meeting in ENSAM, we now have a growing acceptance of JFC's
generalization proposition. It replaces conflicts by complementarity, and
defuses the growing political opposition to Unicode, Google and the American
The engaged work just makes IDNA an ADNs application example with two
simultaneous architectures (unilateral and multilateral). So, you might want
to keep _watching and reporting_ on this list for us, since you are less
interested by our ADN analysis. But, please, do not create any contention
with this group: whatever their solution and whatever their publication date
we will integrate it.
Et merci pout toute l'aide que tu nous a apportée. Cordialement.
2009/4/2 LB <lbleriot at gmail.com>
> 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).
> france at large
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update