Re: Character Variant Deployment at VeriSign

["JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 23:30 20/05/03, Adam M. Costello wrote:
> It might be reasonable for dispute resolution proceedings to consider 
> language information, but I'm not ready to think about that.  Such 
> policies apply only after disputes have arisen, and they are applied
> manually by humans.  Right now I'm more interested in how language tags 
> would be useful technically for automated processing at registration time.

Dear Adam,
here you are confronted to reality.
1. Language tags (RFC 3066) actually define what we name virtual zones for 
the DNS and vernacular contexts for registrations. This is real life: a 
need of the registries, the demands of the users.
2. up to now you evaded that: so the standard does not take them into 
consideration.

The standard being published, reality must now be supported. The variant 
system attempts to that in  "internationalizing" (your meaning in the 
standard) a given language (defined by its langage tag). You point out that 
to be consistant a global solution would call for an addition of all the 
variants of all the language tags.

You are full right. Should it be possible, it should result in no IDN being 
permitted validation.

Language tags are usefull at registration time: to warn the registrant he 
is quitting the language he chose, so he knows that in case of dispute he 
will have to demonstrate his good faith. It will also be used to display 
the user interface in the proper language and to make the registration 
terms depend on the contractual text in that language. Of interest in the 
WhoIs....

The whole issue is that IDNA is about interrnationalizing and not about 
multilingusim.
jfc