Re: [idn] Re: IDNA problem statement

From: Mark Davis (
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 13:43:46 EDT

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: [idn] Re: IDNA problem statement"

    > The problem with SC22 is that Unicode/L2 has infiltrated it, and tries to
    > sabotage the cooperation between ISO and IETF, by not having any

    "infiltrated"? I respectfully disagree with Doug on this. Certainly SC22 has
    not been "infiltrated". There are some people from on a particular working
    group, WG20, that are in support of Unicode, but others who are not.

    But completely independent of Unicode, the vast majority of the "standards"
    that were being proposed *to* the WG20 (such as the internationalization
    API, or 14652) were -- how can I put this most charitably -- of extremely
    low quality. Look at the negative comments in

    for example. The only reason, I believe, that it passed -- even as a TR (not
    a standard), even with huge sections marked as controversial -- was that a
    number of countries tend to simply vote without reading the text.

    The one exception is ISO 14651. With a lot of hard work by people on the
    committee, both those in support of Unicode and those not, the collation
    standard has turned out well.

    ► “Eppur si muove” ◄

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Doug Ewell" <>
    To: "Unicode Mailing List" <>
    Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 08:17
    Subject: Fw: [idn] Re: IDNA problem statement

    > FYI
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Keld Jørn Simonsen" <>
    > To: "John C Klensin" <>
    > Cc: "Keld Jørn Simonsen" <>; "Erik Nordmark"
    <>; "Simon Josefsson" <>;
    > <>
    > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 5:06 am
    > Subject: Re: [idn] Re: IDNA problem statement
    > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:10:11PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
    > > --On Tuesday, 15 October, 2002 18:37 +0200 Keld Jørn Simonsen
    > > <> 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.
    > Could you give me a reference to the approach from IETF to JTC1?
    > As the liaison officer from JTC1/SC2 with IETF I cannot remember
    > such a request, so I would like to see it.
    > The problem with SC22 is that Unicode/L2 has infiltrated it, and tries to
    > sabotage the cooperation between ISO and IETF, by not having any
    > cooperation being done, like delaying liaison or making it in a way that
    > is unacceptable. And also by having ISO standards in the area
    > voted down, delayed, or turned into TRs. And then working smoothly with
    > directly. Their policy sems to be efficient, and this is the behaviour
    > that you are rewarding, IMHO.
    > > 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
    > >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 16 2002 - 14:34:30 EDT