Subject: Re: [idn] UTF-8 / RACE

From: "Sherin Alsoudani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:24:40 -0700

Dear Patrik,

> > As
> > we wait for applications to display RACE properly, it will set us back
> > for a  long while - that is the crux of the problem I am afraid of.
> >
> > For example, the number one Internet application in the Middle East 
>today
> > is  probably Microsoft Internet Explorer.  It already has support for
> > UTF-8.
>
>You still don't recognize the difference many people on this mailing list
>try to get through to you, which is that IF you use an ACE encoding the
>enduser can himself control whether he is seeing the ACE encoded word or
>not. In the case of UTF-8, he must wait for the system administrator to
>upgrade software in the path of the information and upgrade his own
>software. Because of this argument, introduction of IDN is arguably faster
>with ACE than UTF-8.

Sadly, you and many people on this list are not understanding what I have 
written.  My point has been to be practical: you say that the enduser can 
control whether he is seeing the ACE encoded word or not.  Please show me 
one client that can do this today.

And after you find that one client, explain to me why I should change my 
position regarding IE, given that IE is successfully putting out UTF-8 
characters today, there are providers compatible with this today, and that 
bringing the Internet to people sooner rather than later is important 
*today*.  For the 95% of the Middle East that is not on the Internet, there 
are ongoing efforts by system administrators all over to make it easier to 
come online.  Five minutes of research on the net will educate you about 
this.

I am puzzled by this amount of theory that is passed back on forth on the 
list.  Things ARE moving, and UTF-8 is recognized as a better ultimate 
solution.  If it is more painful, I can appreciate that through the 
education you and others have given me.  Nonetheless, "necessity is the 
mother of invention", and your and others claims that it will be very 
difficult, and very slow...well, I would invite you to look around at the 
different efforts going on to prove that wrong.

>You continue to say that software have already support for UTF-8, while you
>point out the true statement that for arabic you don't differ between
>casing of chararcters. This means that the software somewhere not only use
>UTF-8 encoding, but also that some normalization is done somewhere (or
>should happen somewhere). Because the kind of normalization that happens if
>you want case insensitivity everyone need to agree on what normalization
>scheme to use. That is what we in this group call nameprep.

Actually, you misunderstood: Arabic does not have any case - there is no 
concept of upper/lower case.  But I certainly appreciate the need for what 
you call nameprep; there are other issues that Arabic will need.

Sherin

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:36:21 +0200

> one client that can do this today.

There is no client which do UTF-8 encoding according to what this wg will
agree on, and there is no client which do ACE according to what this wg
will agree on.

The application the user is using have to be changed regardless of what
solution is chosen.

But, if you choose UTF-8 as the path, you have to also replace software in
the middle, which the enduser doesn't control, and which the enduser can
not change.

The enduser because of this have to wait until his network administrator do
the change.

In your environment, on your network, it seems that the network
administrator is doing changes fast, but that is certainly not the case in
many cases in the world (including at some sites in Arab countries I have
been working with).

> characters today, there are providers compatible with this today, and
> that  bringing the Internet to people sooner rather than later is
> important  *today*.

No, it is not doing it correctly.

See previous argument about nameprep.

Also, the Internet is not only the web, and no, a user can not communicate
only with a client with other peoples clients. Server software also have to
be replaced.

> solution.

I am not talking about the ultimate solution. I am talking about getting
started with IDN, and giving the users the power of doing so.

> concept of upper/lower case.  But I certainly appreciate the need for
> what  you call nameprep; there are other issues that Arabic will need.

I know Arabic doesn't have any case. I know how it works. I promise you. I
wrote a directory service in 1995 with full UTF-8 support, especially for
Arabic.

But, the glyphs have different codepoints in Unicode. That was my point.

   paf

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 02:16:19 -0400

> *today*. 

because even if IE is canonicalizing the naems before it sends them out,
there is no standard algorithm for doing so.  so MSIE as currently deployed
might do it differently than other applications.  and without such a 
canonicaliation step we have no way to ensure that the same name typed 
into different applications will look up the same records in the DNS.

small scale tests do not predict large scale behavior.  MSIE is just one
application, from a single vendor, and the tests you cite are for a single
language and a small number of information providers.    we need a solution
that will work for any application, any vendor, any of the world's commonly-
used languages, and any information providers who want to use it.

it's easy to provide an example of an IDN solution that works on a small scale 
today; several such examples exist.  It's much more difficult to make a 
convincing case that the solution will work on a large scale once it is deployed.

Keith