Mapping Poll - REQUEST

[Mark Davis ☕]

I don't believe that adopting the current mapping document as-is would be
particularly useful.   It has a number of flaws in coverage, especially
outside of Latin, and I know of no major vendor that has indicated that they
would actually use the mapping, so there is little tangible support for it.
Because it is only informative, dropping it has no real effect on the rest
of IDNA2008.

As to the other questions, whatever the merits of those alternatives I
strongly suspect that the WG is simply exhausted.

Mark


On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 00:56, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:

> Please read and respond to the recent long message that ultimately
> asked for WG recommendations for moving forward on mapping.
>
> The Area Director is of the opinion that we do not have rough
> consensus on a way forward, so expressing your position is essential.
>
> The options are tersely listed below:
>
> 1. Would the WG like to adopt the current "mapping document" as-is?
>
> 2. Would the WG like to engage in further discussion about this
> document, for example in the context of the Unicode TR46 that
> advocates substantially more mapping than the present "mappings"
> document?
>
> 3. Would the WG propose an alternative path towards dealing with the
> question of mapping and if so, what proposition(s) are offered by the
> WG members?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20100208/0a62cb58/attachment.htm