lisa.dusseault at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 05:01:26 CET 2009
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
> 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.
That's certainly not what I claim. I only claimed that we cannot toss out a
WG decision, or force a decision on a WG, based on a chosen expert. What
expert and who would pick them?
I did claim that running code was an important influence on a WG consensus,
by tradition, habit and official encouragement.
- First, that doesn't mean it's the only influence, or the most important
influence in some considerations.
- Second, the term is used both strictly, as in to demonstrate
interoperability directly, and also loosely. By loose interpretations of
"running code" you could claim that how a country uses a character in
printed books was a form of deployed code that can be used as factual
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update