Re: IDNA problem statement

Yes, I find the original paragraph to be very odd. It's a bit like having a
paragraph:

"The IDNA specification is written in the English language, which avoids the
significant delays that would be inherent in waiting for a different and
specific human language to be developed for IDN purposes by some other
standards developing organization."

I think the paragraph best omitted, but if you really need something,
perhaps wording like:

IDNA uses the Unicode character repertoire, which is the universal character
encoding jointly developed by the Unicode Consortium and ISO/IEC SC2, and
which is widely deployed on computer systems.

Mark
__________________________________
http://www.macchiato.com
►  “Eppur si muove” ◄

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Nordmark" <[email protected]>
To: "Doug Ewell" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; "Erik Nordmark" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 14:37
Subject: Re: [idn] IDNA problem statement


> > Erik Nordmark <Erik dot Nordmark at sun dot com> wrote:
> >
> > > IDNA uses the Unicode character repertoire, which avoids the
> > > significant delays that would be inherent in waiting for a different
> > > and specific character set be defined for IDN purposes by some other
> > > standards developing organization.
> >
> > I still don't see the point of this passage.  It sounds as though some
> > other standards organization would be better equipped to develop a
> > character set than SC 2/WG 1 or UTC, but we're going with Unicode
> > anyway, just for the sake of expediency.  Is that the intent?  If not,
> > what purpose does the "which" clause serve?
>
> I guess it could have been phrased better.
> The intent of the paragraph is to say that the even though the WG has
> discussed that Unicode might not be ideal, the (rough) consensus in the WG
> is to not prod some body outside the IETF (be it UTC or ISO or somebody
else)
> to develop something potentially better than Unicode and wait for the
result.
>
> Thus in terms of a problem statement, this is a constraint (quite
resonable
> one at that :-) that the WG placed on itself.
>
>   Erik
>
>
>