phoffman at imc.org
Wed Dec 22 22:47:37 CET 2010
At 1:34 PM -0800 12/22/10, Mark Davis ? wrote:
>However, it does feel like you are more concerned with the form of my comment rather than the substance. To try to focus back on the substance, let me just say that the following from Patrik's document should not be in the document, for the reasons I outlined.
> >IETF consensus
>>is though that the changes are minor, and that it is important IDNA
>>standard is aligned with the Unicode Standard.
>Do you agree or disagree?
Disagree. The document should have a concise statement of IETF consensus. If others on this list agree that your proposed statement ("IETF consensus is though that the characters are minor, and strict backwards compatibility of IDNA2008 is not important for minor characters") is better than Patrik's and mine, we can substitute it into our document. Short of that, however, we would leave the document as-is and have this discussion during IETF Last Call for the document.
More information about the Idna-update