ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Thu Dec 3 02:51:29 CET 2009
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 6:40 PM -0500 12/2/09, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> It was just this assertion, in late 2001, that allowed the IDNA (2003)
>> WG to ignore the input from Chinese engineers.
> Claiming that the WG "ignored" a significant group of participants is fairly insulting.
Paul, do you seriously suggest that your feelings are important? A
bunch of our peers went back to Beijing very, very disapointed, and
from that point, when "consensus" formed among an overwhelmingly 7bit
body to reject the request made by an 8bit body, we have had an issue.
Lisa's repeating the error, claiming that some random heap of code is
more important than all or almost all of the users of a particular
value of a sequence of octets, because the users are organized as
residents of states, rather than as the customers of a monopoly, or
some other installed base of running code.
We shouldn't make this mistake twice, and insisting that a central
choice to form this WG was incorrect at LC is ... peculiar.
Anyway, if you think its about personalities, you're mistaken.
More information about the Idna-update