Yes, thanks for the correction.<br><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:50, Kent Karlsson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kent.karlsson14@comhem.se">kent.karlsson14@comhem.se</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;">
<div>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
Den 2009-07-05 20.41, skrev "Mark Davis" <<a href="http://mark@macchiato.com" target="_blank">mark@macchiato.com</a>>:<br>
<br>
</span></font><div class="im"><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">What I'm saying is that *no* mapping is better than an optional mapping. That is, there are three options people have mentioned:<br>
<br>
A. mapping required by IDNA protocol<br>
B. no mapping as part of IDNA docs<br>
C. optional, UI-only mapping in IDNA docs<br>
<br>
I think that C is far worse than B. So rather than going down the C route, I'd rather go back to John's original formulation (B).<br>
</span></font></blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Both A and C are at least predictable. B is a muddle - it does not advance interoperability; it simply makes it harder to predict what implementations are going to do, since some will do it and some won't.<br>
</span></font></blockquote></div><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
<font color="#800080">I guess you meant to write "Both A and B are at least predictable. C is a muddle..."<br>
<br>
/kent k<br>
</font><br>
</span></font>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>