At 09:07 PM 6/7/2002 -0700, liana Ye wrote: >This is CDNC final comments. Please respect their experties >in dealing with large character sets. The IETF has showed a great deal of respect for that expertise. It is the reason the IETF has extended discussion about IDN much, much longer than was necessary for the core technical effort. Please show similar respect to the IETF community that created Internet technology, including DNS and MIME. (My reference to MIME is because it solved exactly this problem for email. So, the IETF has direct experience with this type of problem.) There are many real and serious technical problems that need solving. The problem you want to solve is one of them. It is real and it is serious. It also does not yet have an accepted solution. When you produce a technical specification that solves this problem for the entire Internet and when you demonstrate that there were support for it among vendors and users, then there will not be any difficulty getting it made into a standard. However we have yet to see such a specification with such support. It is unreasonable to delay the rest of this effort while we wait forever until you produce such an accepted specification. > Yes, it is difficult to >standardize character mapping tables, as we know well >enough. Without the mapping tables there is no IDN either. > >Yes, you are right on divide and conquor. What is dividable >what is not dividable is what we have been debating on this >list. IDN divides this issue in a manner than has been demonstrated to work quite well. As has been explained many times, the problem that you want to solve has nothing at all to do with the DNS. It is a much, much more general problem. >UCS is not dividable is your position. I say it is dividable >with langage tag. You are confusing characters with languages. It is my impression that this has been explained many times. d/