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

Re: Character Variant Deployment at VeriSign




BTW, one thing I learn over the 3-4 years working on IDN is that either you have (a) a working solution to a problem is bounded and well-define or you have (b) a vague and incomplete solution to a problem which is broad and all emcompassing.


As engineers, we love to find a working solution to a problem which broad and all emcompassing but I was told some mathematician have prove that such solution dont exist for any system involving human.

So take your pick.

-James Seng

James Seng wrote:
If we were to divide the IDN space into two side

(a) resolution involving end-users, IDNA-clients, apps developers, etc

(b) IDN registration & administration involving registrants, Registries, Registrars, NICs etc

The goal for the JET document is really for (b), not (a). This is not to say that the we totally ignore the end-users. If the deployment of registration policy helps the end-users, that would be nice but our priority is on (b).

That is why there is a focus on reducing dispute and less on "reducing confusing to end-users". We understand that such method is incomplete and we clearly stated that "the issues for CJK variants are complex and the guideline only forms part of the solutions".

On a more personal note, I would advise that you dont go near the slippery slope of "reducing confusion for all end-users". This would more likely going to re-open the questions of how variants (particularly TC-SC) in in IDNA/Nameprep.

-James Seng

This might make sense to the registrants, but it will still be confusing
to end users for whom X and Y are variants, and I think we should
be trying to help all users, not just registrants.  And even the
registrants, after they discover that their domains are being confused
by some users, might start complaining.

AMC