Katakana Middle Dot again (Was: tables-06b.txt: A.5, A.6, A.9)
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Fri Aug 7 22:55:37 CEST 2009
--On Friday, August 07, 2009 22:13 +0200 Elisabeth Blanconil
<eblanconil at gmail.com> wrote:
> God bless Japan!
> How many languages, scripts and orthotypographies round the
> world have no Kenneth to speak-up on their behalf and will
> suffer from the IETF IDNA layer violation. Or most probably
> simply disregard it. How easier would it have been to organise
> a TLD Table inheritance system and leave the top zone managers
> decide about the permitted code points or not.
Except that a "TLD table inheritance system" is impossible in a
DNS in which it is not, in the general case, possible to tell
which TLD a label is actually part of and in which a given node
can be effectively a subtree of multiple trees.
> Was it not at a time a proposition by John Klensin?
Nope. I've advocated giving registries (at all levels) maximum
flexibility to determine local needs _within_ constraints
imposed by the protocols to make DNS-based identifiers in the
global Internet work well, smoothly, and as unambiguously as
possible. And I believe I've been consistent about that for at
least the last 15 or 20 years.
> Ooops! This would have been a problem for "internationalized"
> money making gTLDs ICANN wants to sell.
No, actually, some of the "Rich people" who want those domains
would undoubtedly like the freedom to do whatever they like,
even to use character coding systems other than Unicode. So you
need a different conspiracy theory and/or source of innuendo.
> I may seem out of topic. But I am not sure I am. A good
> architecture should be independent from business fashions. As
> Jefsey says the problem is that IDNA is not even considered by
> IAB in RFC 3869 as a matter for development priority.
3869 doesn't discuss "development priority". It discusses
relatively long-term research priorities. If you would like to
put IDNs into that category and accept the five or ten year wait
it would imply, I'm sure I can find people who would be
sympathetic to that idea. But I'm not one of them and I suspect
that few participants in the WG are either.
> IMHO the
> real issue is to make sure in the final wording that Class,
> TLD, presentation, or Zone related character restrictions or
> exceptions can be documented without contradicting the
> proposed text - in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts.
I wish I had a better idea what you are talking about and
whether it was relevant to the WG.
More information about the Idna-update