<div class="gmail_quote">2009/10/27 Shawn Steele <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com">Shawn.Steele@microsoft.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;">
I'd rather not have what I need to do for mappings split in 2 different places. I also cannot impliment IDNA2008 until the standards are in place.<br>
<br>
It seems that doing the 2nd step as an RFC would take quite some time considering that the problems with special cases were already raised in this forum in the last year and have not been addressed.<br></blockquote><div>
<br></div></div>Dear Users and Colleagues,<br>
<br>
IDNA2008 will certainly call for a second (more ?) user oriented step. I therefore have started an IUCG special interest group page
(<a href="http://idna2010.org">http://idna2010.org</a>). It will only be activated once we have the final text approved by the IESG. In the meanwhile, I started listing the different topics that
could have to be discussed towards an IDNA2010 final usage/operative
tuning and/or Best Practices.<br><br>
Best<br>
Portzamparc. <br>