<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/10/6 Marie-France Berny <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mfberny@gmail.com">mfberny@gmail.com</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;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>At 11:14 06/10/2009, Martin J. Dürst wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I object to the removal of CS, because specs other than IDNA might make<br>
use of BIDI. Please see my previous mail.<br></blockquote></div></blockquote><div> </div></div><div>+1<br>Removing them adds nothing to IDNA but may create an additional problem with idnaplus when we succeeded in miniminzing them quite to nil. What would be the interest?<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>I object to a removal at this stage. The current IDNA document set has been reviewed by many people we asked if it could support the international semantic addressing scheme we work on. The response was positive and we therefore joined the WG consensus. Removing CS at this stage is something we cannot accept as it would call for new review round. This would call at least for one month, work, time, explanations, and probably some credibility loss with experts of whose we need further cooperation.<br>
<br>Unless obviously if there is a clear dirimant reason? But this does not seem to be the case?<br><br>Portzamparc<br></div></div><br>