Issues lists and the "preprocessing" topic

[Patrik Fältström]

On 21 aug 2008, at 01.59, Mark Davis wrote:

> Based on comments from John and others at the meeting, however, it  
> appears
> that the working group is fundamentally not interested in having a  
> common
> specification for a mapping phase be part of the IDNAbis, and that  
> it would
> be better done by organizations like Unicode or others. Based on  
> that, I
> modified the draft at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqr8rd5_51c3nrskcx 
> , and
> submitted it to the UTC for consideration.


A few things:

I have not seen this consensus you refer to. The contrary. I see  
support for such a document.

I personally support such a document in the IETF, and have told you  
and everyone I have been asked.

The URI you have above does not resolve. I get back a 404.

Regarding earlier versions of this document, I think it is a fine  
start, but too bound to "web based applications". I.e. ok as such, but  
if applicable to more protocols than web/http, it could be more  
generic. But see comments on in what order the wg have cycles for  
working on multiple documents and multiple threads.

    Patrik