<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
so a key issue here is what constitutes normative material and what is explanatory. John asked for specific proposals on that point in Dublin and I am sure would appreciate similarly pointed inputs now.<div><br></div><div>vint</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Aug 22, 2008, at 6:44 PM, Mark Davis wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">In Dublin, we unfortunately never got to a main issue, which was the document structure. What I think we need to do is move all normative material from rationale to protocol, and then:<br><ol><li>In the protocol document in an appendix have a listing of the differences with IDNA2003, with examples of each kind of difference for clarity.</li> <li>In the rationale document have some explanation of why the differences exist.<br></li></ol>Mark<br> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:18 PM, John C Klensin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:klensin@jck.com">klensin@jck.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <br> <br> --On Wednesday, 20 August, 2008 09:55 -0700 Erik van der Poel<br> <div class="Ih2E3d"><<a href="mailto:erikv@google.com">erikv@google.com</a>> wrote:<br> <br> > The current IDNA spec is IDNA2003, and it includes the default<br> > pre-processing steps. Now, IDNA200X is removing (the details<br> > of) the pre-processing steps, so it ought to explain this<br> > major difference between IDNA2003 and 200X. This explanation<br> > can mention the difference between the "default"<br> > pre-processing (as seen in IDNA2003 and HTML today) and the<br> > per-locale UI pre-processing such as Turkish dotted/dotless<br> > uppercase 'i'. If the WG consensus is to leave out any mention<br> > of UI pre-processing, that is fine, but I think it is quite<br> > important that IDNA200X explain that the default<br> > pre-processing of IDNA2003 has been removed.<br> <br> </div>I agree and you didn't even need to twist my arm.<br> <br> But I have a problem on which I need advice (and, ideally,<br> specific text or instructions) from the WG. It appears to me<br> that there are three ways to address the differences between<br> IDNA2003 and IDNA2008, of which this one and the exclusion of<br> non-letter/ non-digit characters may be the ones with the<br> largest impact.<br> <br> (1) We explain what IDNA2008 does and ignore IDNA2003<br> and the differences entirely.<br> <br> (2) We explain what IDNA2008 does and note that it is<br> different but don't explain why.<br> <br> (3) We explain the issues with mapping and why we<br> decided to go from a "map whenever possible so as to<br> include most Unicode characters somehow" logic to a<br> "don't map so as to make behavior more understandable<br> and U-labels and A-labels convertible to each other<br> without information loss" logic.<br> <br> Rationale and its predecessors started with (3). I was told to<br> tear out the text that seemed critical of IDNA2003, with one key<br> comment being that type of justification may have been important<br> in getting where we are but that it is no longer important now<br> that the WG is chartered, etc. So we are now roughly at (2)<br> with some of the WG membership still believing that we should be<br> at (1), i.e., with all explanatory material discarded.<br> <br> I'm happy to go back toward (3) --especially since I've never<br> been convinced that removing those explanations was wise-- but I<br> have two problems. I don't know how to say "this is different<br> from IDNA2003 because..." without saying things about the<br> IDNA2003 strategy that some will construe as critical and<br> negative. Others might be able to do better. Or it is<br> possible that what we really need to do is to strengthen (2)<br> without making a "why this is different" comparison. I've<br> already done a bit of the latter and hope that I can finish up<br> the pending drafts and get them posted this weekend (this last<br> week or so have been terrors for reasons unrelated to IDNA).<br> But I don't know if the new text will be adequate; if it is not,<br> I would really appreciate specific suggestions.<br> <br> And, at some stage, I think we need Vint to see if he can state<br> a formal consensus call on whether we want "why this is<br> different" explanations even if those explanations could be<br> interpreted as critical of IDNA2003.<br> <font color="#888888"><br> john<br> </font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> Idna-update mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br> <a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">_______________________________________________</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Idna-update mailing list</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>