[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Character Variant Deployment at VeriSign




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