<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: mappings-01</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
Den 2009-07-05 20.41, skrev "Mark Davis" <<a href="mark@macchiato.com">mark@macchiato.com</a>>:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><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><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>
</BODY>
</HTML>