Subject: Re: [idn] Re: 7 bits forever!

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 15:54:55 -0500

>> OK, so then what's the advantage of UTF-8 over ACE? The range of
>> expression is the same; and, if you're replying with both, then the 
packet
>> size doesn't shrink.
>The advantage is there are applications that support UTF8 already but 
there
>are no software(except certain iDN client software) that support ACE yet, 
so
>why not use UTF8 on protocol, so from applications to protocol there will 
be
>less conversions.

OK, but that's a really minor win; you're talking about *maybe* a few 
hundred extra memory-to-memory copies (for large queries/responses)--and 
they're all on the client side (a DNS server with ACE doesn't have to 
decode the ACE), so they don't affect scalability of the DNS.  That's a 
much smaller cost than introducing an incompatible format.

/=================================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer              |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.         |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.         |
|=================================================================|
|"Hastur was paranoid, which was simply a sensible...well-adjusted|
|reaction to living in Hell." --_Good Omens_                      |
\=================================================================/

---

From: "Edmon Chung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 16:02:09 -0500

--- Original Message -----
From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
> much smaller cost than introducing an incompatible format.
Again you have fallen into the common underestimation of the upgrade work
required for ACE to work perfectly (including display).  What I see is that
applications are already having some trouble going from ASCII and local
encoding to UTF.  ACE in essence requires the conversion from local encoding
toUTF first and then toACE.  I see trouble here...

MSIE have been trying to implement UTF8 for some time now, yet it is still
far from being acceptable.  Are we supposing that any vendor or developer
would do much better job if we complicate the task by adding an additiona
toACE procedure?

Edmon

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:34:44 -0800

Edmon Chung <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Again you have fallen into the common underestimation of the upgrade
> work required for ACE to work perfectly (including display).

Neither ACE nor UTF-8 will display correctly everywhere without client
software upgrades.

OK?  Can we move on now beyond this obvious point?

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California