CLDR data (Re: Comments on the IDNA2008 document)

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Jan 13 17:25:12 CET 2009


At 15:44 13/01/2009, John C Klensin wrote:
>(3) If one intends to supplement or supercede the DNS with, or
>hide it behind, some highly-localized naming arrangement, as I
>have often understood Jefsey to propose, then discussions of
>IDNs are almost irrelevant unless we manage to make them so
>confusing and unstable that the DNS cannot be used as a firm
>base for those other systems.  I can elaborate on that issue if
>it is not clear.

Dear John,
it seems that what is confuse is what you think I propose and you 
documented with Harald.

My proposition is very simple: the best internet will always 
eventually be the people's internet, by the people, for the people.

1. let stabilise Internet legacy internationalisation through a 
stable IDNA. This will address the needs of some users and set a reference.
2. from then on, several projects will probably pop-up to address the 
needs of other classes of users and the virtual root management.
3. I think the IDNA process as it is today (provided it eventually 
moves ahead) is an acceptable strategic example for the Internet 
evolution. I wrote an I_D on that (but I wait for days xml2rfc.org 
get the last legal template version).

Eventual Network stability will depend on IDNA blocking or not some 
of these projects. This would force them to conflict with IDNA. At 
this time the WG-IDNABIS slowliness blocks them all.
jfc



More information about the Idna-update mailing list