[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.
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
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
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
The whole issue is that IDNA is about interrnationalizing and not about