UTC Response to "Letter to Unicode Technical Committee on IDNA2008"
gihan at uom.lk
Wed Dec 9 17:53:18 CET 2009
On 08-12-2009 17:42, Vint Cerf wrote:
> I believe that the discussions of the past week have confirmed a general consensus
> on the preference that Final Sigma and Sharp-S be PVALID. We did not poll for
> the joiner/non-joiner question because a consensus already existed, in my opinion,
> as chair, for these to be contextually valid (CONTEXTJ).
> The method of introduction of IDNA2008 is important to all of us, to promote its
> utility. At the close of the day, I will review all of the comments received and attempt
> to synthesize what I believe is a plan around which consensus can be obtained.
Good. Now let's get on with implementing it. I'm sure it will be
painful, and we'll regret certain decisions down the road, but that's
how it is.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3908 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20091209/40e53b59/attachment.bin
More information about the Idna-update