Q1 is mapping on lookup permanent or transitional?
vint at google.com
Sat Apr 4 12:57:05 CEST 2009
we are NOT going to discuss ML-DNS or JFC proposals in this mailing
If you persist in posting on these topics I will have to declare your
postings off topic and have your posting privileges removed.
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
vint at google.com
On Apr 4, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Rémy Renardin wrote:
> 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.
> Rémy Renardin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update