Subject: Re: [idn] An ignorant question about TC<-> SC

From: liana Ye <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:04:49 -0700

> 
> In either case, the mapping becomes readily plausible if the
> language, in addition to the content of the character string, is
> known, but is hard to think about without causing side-effects in
> other languages if not.
> 
> Is that helpful?
>      john
> 
> 

Yes, you have asked a good question.  I have an updated 
draft-liana-idn-map.01 to discuss preventions of the side-effects.
It is ready to be released, and I just do not know how much 
interest there is in this WG to read it.   If anyone is interested 
in reading it, please responding to this massege, I can send 
it out to individual requests.

Liana

---

From: liana Ye <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 02:14:33 -0700

Dictionaries implement TC/SC tables. That is the 
reason they are presented as words.  The 
original statement is to indicate the reality, that
is TC/SC is one language.

Liana

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:28:42 +0800 "James Seng/Personal"
<[email-masked]> writes:
> > That is for the readers of the dictionary, not for code tables.
> > And code tables are referred to individual character mappings.  
> > something like GB or BIG5 tables.  A dictionary table is a 
> > word/string mapping. I am, as well as Tseng, Huang, as I 
> > believe,  were speaking of code tables.  
> 
> Quote: "...TC/SC are identical by all authoritive dictionaries..."
>  
> -James Seng
>

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 20:58:25 -0700

[JS: bounced to me for "Header line too long". Rebounce it back to the
list with header snip. Take note]

At 10:06 01/10/28 +0800, xiang deng wrote:

>On  Saturday, October 27, 2001 2:58 PM, Patrik F$BgM(Btstr$B‹N(B
wrote:

> > I have not said it should. I like and appreciate the recommendation
the
> > Unicode Consortium gave the IETF, and that is to _NOT_ do
unification of
> > TC/SC or even try to come up with matching rules.
> >
> > Instead, multiple registrations in DNS, one for the SC and one for
the TC
> > version is recommended.
>
>Yes, multiple registrations in DNS is better than do nothing.
>But, there are still some problems can not solve:
>1). Just do one for the SC and one for the TC, it isn't enough. Because
other
>person can register mixed TC/SC domain name. How to deal with the
>disputations of
>registration. Such disputations will not disappear, if we have no real
>solution about it.
>it's policy issue.

This is a valid concern. It is ultimately a policy issue. But
it should be possible to produce some data/guidelines (e.g. as
an informational RFC) that registrars/registries can adopt.

It is much easier in such a context to deal with 1-n correspondences
than it is if an actual mapping is required.

>2). multiple registrations in DNS can solve a part of the issue, How to
>solve the
>delegation issue of subdomain and keep the consistency.
>it's technology issue.

I'm not really a DNS expert, but I think with something called
CNAME or DNAME, there is a very easy solution that will keep
consistency.

>3). if we provide multiple registration solution for customs, we must
>guarantee the multiple
>records belong to one custom. but from technology view, we can not
>guarantee it.

It's the customer's job to do that, and the registrar's job
to help them. No need for this WG to do anything.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 14:09:24 +0900

[JS: bounced to me "header line too long" so I snip the header again.
Martin, can you trim your mail header before you post? Thanks.]

At 12:15 01/10/28 +0800, xiang deng wrote:

>On  Sunday, October 28, 2001 10:49 AM, Martin Duerst wrote:

>Thanks.
>No, we can't keep consistency.
>Mr. James has agree with my opinion.

Can somebody who really knows the DNS details please answer this:

Assume somebody registers SSSS as a domain with name servers,...
and registers TTTT CNAME SSSS, why would that not guarantee that
everybody looking for foo.SSSS and for foo.TTTT would get to
the same machine(s)?

>If the fact is as your said. If a user register a domain name which
include
>Chinese characters, he must register all variant forms of the domain
name.

No. What I'm assuming is that s/he registers two forms, an
all-simplified
and an all-traditional form. That's the customer's responsibility.
The rules I mentioned in my answer to your point 1), if applied, then
would guarantee that nobody else can register a name that is a mixture
of simplified and traditional characters of the already registered
names.

>Then he can protect his intelligent property of this domain name.
>why? just because he want register a Chinese domain name?
>This answer will not satisfy any person.

Registering a lot of domain names won't satisfy anybody. But
registering two domain names should not be too bad, I think.

Regards,    Martin.