<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/9/17 Harald Alvestrand <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:harald@alvestrand.no">harald@alvestrand.no</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
If you want to build your own intranet, and call it "IDNAPLUS", you are free to use PRIVATE USE codes in whatever way you like. That's why they are called PRIVATE USE.<br>
<br>
There's no reason to expect that the Internet will change to accomodate interoperation with that intranet. That's the problem of the "IDNAPLUS" intranet.<br></blockquote><div><br>Except that PRIVATE USE ONE and TWO are DISALLOWED.<br>
<br>This is why I say that the only two differences are PRIVATE USE ONE and TWO being allowed (like in IDNA2003) and U-Label being permitted to carry uppercases like in IDNA2003. <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Not my problem.<br></blockquote><div><br>Then your position is not my problem either. I mean we identified that there is no conflict between us, just that we are othogonal. If I take the protocol and table document and just change these two points and call it IDNAPLUS, explaining how these two points can be blocked in order to only be IDNA conformant, I can publish them as IDNAPLUS RFC? This then should not be a problem for you?<br>
<br>Best<br>Portzamparc<br></div></div><br>