Re: Re: IDNA problem statement

--On Tuesday, 15 October, 2002 18:37 +0200 Keld Jørn Simonsen
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 06:06:26PM +0200, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>> > I would still like it to be called the ISO 10646 repertoire.
>> 
>> Doing that change to this added text would be very odd given
>> that that the rest of the document has no mention of ISO
>> 10646. Thus I think consistency is the overriding concern
>> here.
> 
> Is that not a major change from IETF policy? We should mention
> ISO standards when they are applicable.

Keld, this is an old argument in the IDN WG, and I think ISO
basically decided to lose it a year or two ago.  While, I, too,
prefer to reference ISO standards where possible, the situation
here is that the IDN effort needed both a character and code
point repertoire and a collection of norms about how those code
points were to be used, compared, etc.  My preference, and I
think that of the IETF generally, would have been to reference
ISO Standards for all of this but, as you know, the
complementary "usage" standards did not follow the code point
ones.  Even where TRs exist, ISO generally doesn't like having
its TRs referenced normatively. 

We approached ISO about the problem of the missing standards at
the JTC1 level and stressed that, if they couldn't respond
usefully and fairly quickly, we would have to rely on UTC.  We
didn't get a response for a long time, and then, in my opinion,
were brushed off.  And you are all-too-aware what happened when
we tried to work something with SC22... from my perspective, not
only did we not get active cooperation, we were deliberately
insulted by their "agreeing" to something we had previously told
them (formally and informally) we would not accept.  While this
was going on, the Unicode folks were actively working with the
WG, inviting IETF participation in their meetings and in
liaisons with on their Board, and trying to be responsive to our
needs in their ongoing work.  I think they are entitled to
recognition for those efforts, including having their preferred
name for the CCS and associated materials used.  And, if JTC1
wants to isolate themselves from the Internet in this area, and
to hint that they are doing so because the IETF is just not
important enough to deal with on a peer basis, I don't see any
reason to respond by advertising the relevant ISO Standard in
more than a footnote.

Just my opinion, of course.  But, if my analysis is correct or
rings true, the problem you are addressing needs to be raised
within JTC1, not in this working group or over these documents.

    john