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

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 17:58:46 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chun-Hsin Wu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 3:34 PM
> 
> 
> For full-name DNS, White House may need to register at least
> three records:
>     "America"."USA"
>     "United States"."USA"
>     "USA"."USA"
> If they forget to register "United States of America"."USA",
> some other one may register it validly. This may imply that
> every IDN customer must know and register all combinations
> of the domain name he wants to register.

This situation isn't unique to IDNs.  I can register foobar.com, and someone
else can register foo-bar.com if I don't.  I have to make a conscious
decision to register the name forms that are important to me.  Why should
IDNs be treated differently?

-Scott-

---

From: "Chun-Hsin Wu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:23:10 +0800

> IDNs be treated differently?

As the comment of James, domain names are identifiers, not names.
I'm sorry to mislead you into this situation in the above analogy.

As you might know, Chinese is an open-set character-based language.
I think the case is not similar to foobar.com and foo-bar.com; it's
more similar to 'A' and 'a', but this 'Aa' analogy still can not precisely
explain the case. I'm sorry I'm not a language expert to descibe this
issue exactly and completely. Hope I won't mislead you once.

Regards,

Chun-Hsin Wu

---

From: "Kenny Huang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 06:15:28 +0800

Hi,

Let's deal with Math: Each Chinese code has two kinds of formation
basically (for 1-1 mapping only). Thus we will have 2^N permutation.
There are about 2000 pairs of  frequently used TC/SC codes,
so we have 2^2000 permutation. Here comes the most interesting part:
The issue can be easily solved through existing technology, but we rather
shift  the burden of 2^2000 permutation to the daily labor intensive operations. 
Not to mention other ripple effect : 2^N lawsuit, trademark enforcement...,etc.  
I was convinced that these problems were created, just because engineers 
dislike it.  I am also curious to know why things are urged to that direction and
their motivation.

Kenny Huang

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Hollenbeck, Scott
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 6:59 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [idn] An ignorant question about TC<-> SC
> 
>

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:26:28 +0100

--On 01-10-27 06.15 +0800 Kenny Huang <[email-masked]> wrote:

> dislike it.  I am also curious to know why things are urged to that
> direction and their motivation.

IF a mapping table existed from SC to TC or the other way around, which was
accepted by authoritative bodies in the world like ISO and Unicode
Consortium we could add that table to the nameprep mapping tables.

But, it doesn't exist because the mappings are not 1:1. Only some are 1:1.
Others are 1:n or n:1. See the tsconv draft. It is explained there.

Because such a table doesn't exist, only partial solutions to the SC/TC
problem can be created, and recommendations IETF get say that it is  better
to NOT have such a mapping table than a partial one which only talk about
the 1:1 ones.

And, even if we add a table for the 1:1 mappings, I have not seen an
authoritative source for such a table. Only a list of codepoints in the
tsconv draft without any reference to the source of the table.

   paf