Q1 is mapping on lookup permanent or transitional?
renardinr at gmail.com
Sat Apr 4 12:52:20 CEST 2009
2009/4/4 John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
> --On Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:26 -0700 Lisa Dusseault
> <lisa.dusseault at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I do not
> see any possibility of addressing the issues in the IDN context
> -- even if only because a better solution for one particular
> language would foul things up for others using the same script--
> the issues that Jefsey and his colleagues have raised about
> appropriate case matching for French are actually good examples
> of this: if users has learned that most mappings behave in a
> reasonable and predictable way, they will expects all
> mapping/matching operations to work the way they would
> predict... and be confused or irritated when they do not.
let me summarize our "French" position as our Chair puts it. Actually users
expect IDNA2008 as a revision of IDNA2003 to work better for them than
IDNA2003. In the case of the French script it does not. However, the support
of Latin majuscules is an accepted Unicode approximation (to use upper-cases
instead and non-user-decided casefolding) which conflicts with ASCII DNs
case insensivity in the IDNA specifc case. This is why a negotiation is to
occur some way, to decide if Roman uppercases are ASCII or Latin.
- If such a fundamental conflict was not noticed by this WG, while French is
one of their nearest natural language, was disregarded by its members but
you (in spite of us documenting it on-line), and banned by the Chair, only
relevant language authorities can decide of them (like ASIWG, is currently
doing for LAS).
- this negociation mecanism belongs to the missing presentation layer. The
double look-up is an attempt to such a negociation. But its algorithm is
wrong: if Ecole.fr and ecole.fr are registered which one will be picked for
"http://ecole.fr"? Another solution could be the class usage you did
propose. Another is the virtual classes JFC proposes with the "x.--".
Now, the Chair does not want this WG (1) to dicuss interoperabilty with our
ML-DNS exploration (2) nor listen to users, we found that the only way to
proceed is a complete review of the DN understanding which protects the DNS
from confusion in usage and in management and makes it fully able to support
the semantic addressing space as we approach it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update