[vip] Support brief for the Latin script study

[JFC Morfin]

At 16:35 12/08/2011, Cary Karp wrote:
>I had previously posted a support brief prepared for the Latin study to
>the general VIP list. I have now posted an update to that text which you
>will find at:
>
>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latin-vip/attachments/20110812/2b5bb0c7/latin-support-brief.1-1-0001.pdf


Dear Carry,

"The code points available for use in IDNs are all taken from the 
Unicode Character Code Charts. The Latin script is divided there into 
nine blocks.". This clearly gives the environment of your work. Thank 
you for it as it seems a very good reference.

It shows that you definitly consider Unicode as a partner of the 
Variant debate. This means that the work I carried to consolidate all 
the post-IDNA2008 problems resolution vocabulary has to include the 
Unicode Glossary. I added it under 
http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNS_Common_Glossary. This is an fastitdious 
task that is nearly completed. It gives us all the vocabulary that we 
may need from the existing technologies and SDOs (I may still 
introduce some additional concepts from the IUTF side).

However, I am afraid there are two generic prerequisites before 
considering "locale" problems (like for the Latin script). These two 
prerequisites are the use side architectural responses to 
orthotypography and homography requirements.

For years of stubborn debate Unicode has shown they have no simple 
architectural response to any of them. In the Latin case there are 
two lack of response: (1) French majuscules and (2) Roman script 
letters confusions with Greek, Cyrillic, etc. scripts. IMHO this 
logically precludes Variants to be documented and supported through 
any Unicode related algorithm.

Actually, the true difficulty is that by nature (one sign, one meaning):

- the Unicode's offer is "Saussurian", i.e. a dyadic semiology;
- while the whole digital ecosystem use demand (e.g. Variants) is 
"Piercian", i.e. triadic semiotics. (different signs, many people, 
several meanings or "denotata"). The very idea of "variant", implies 
a semiosis somewhere.

This is why the way I see IDNA2008 (and its consequences) has not 
much to do with Unicode, except as an accidental [it can change] 
convenient pointer set to the signs we refer to when talking of 
scripts. For me IDNA2008 has to do with the DNS we had to preserve 
and the network simplicity to be supported along RFC 1958 recipes 
when we have to support semiosis in its four  (semantic, syntax, 
pragmatic and multilinguistic) components. And IMHO we do not know 
(yet?) how to make it. This definitely is what Fast Track should have tested.

I know scripts are not a IETF, ICANN, ITU, etc. area of expertise. 
This is however the area of the users' demands (e.g. variants). 
IDNA2008 has proposed what IETF could propose: a stable, reliable and 
Unicode independent proven basis with the DNS. Vint proposed that 
ICANN could take over, you accepted. Now you explain how you see that 
support, in the Latin locale case

For example you write: "Various terms have been used to designate 
this concept of equivalence but none has yet been provided with a 
definition that is adequate in all the contexts where it is needed". 
I am afraid this is not correct : "Variants are to be  people's and 
DNS equivalent, i.e. all of the variants must resolve the same IP 
address". This better defines what we want.

Best.
jfc