<html>
<body>
At 02:37 08/05/2008, Kenneth Whistler wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">And it does *not* belong in
IDNs.</blockquote><br>
This is the right sensible thing to say. _who_ said so? no one
yet.<br><br>
All these debates only show that for eight years there is still no
consensus about what IDNs are supposed to be. I am supposed to be the bad
guy because I oppose every constraints and lack of interoperability. What
I do in terms of multilingualisation. But, I do not in terms of IDNA
service definition.<br><br>
I think Louis Blériot gave a proper solution. Let not decide what IDNA
will _not_ support. But let decide what IDNA _will_ support. <br><br>
The idea is not to support the whole Unicode, but the people, through a
pragmatic service that works. The digital convergence and semantic
emergence mean that we need to be semiotically compatible with
every mobile/brain systems round the world (30 millions fixed
telephone lines for the Internet in Africa, 300 millions mobile phones).
We know they can support ASCII, what next to add in the mobile's chip
that my brain cell also know?<br><br>
It is possible to do much more. We agree. Let make it in two steps. One
being what the world urgently needs four years ago. After we will look at
the one Gilgamesh could have used, and kids will love to use when they
discover their parents do not read cuneiforms. <br><br>
The only thing to do is to make sure interoperability between the two is
preserved and permitted. Frankly I do not give a damn if my mobile do not
support Han but support French. The same as many in the world are not
bothered if their mobile do not support ASCII. I just ask my mobile to
support the languages and the scripts I know, will know or will invent.
99.9% of the people in the world ask the same [what should protect us all
from phishing]<br><br>
RFC 3935 says "The IETF has to make decisions. In deciding [] one
should not chiefly look at the type of activity, but the potential
benefit to the Internet [I would write "the people"]. [all this
has] little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do
with the technology that we choose to create." The problem here is
that no one has chosen yet what was to be created. <br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
</body>
</html>