Mapping Poll - REQUEST

[Gihan Dias]

On 08-02-2010 14:26, Vint Cerf wrote:
My views are:
> 1. Would the WG like to adopt the current "mapping document" as-is?
>    
no - I suggest it point people towards sources of mapping, such as (the 
work in progress) UTS46.
> 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?
>    
no - I think we will talk in circles.
> 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?
>    
I think Unicode Consortium using UTR46 as a base may be able to produce 
a normative mapping.

Gihan


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3908 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20100209/afdfa340/attachment.bin