TATWEEL is not an open issue. That was decided by WG consensus and is not necessary to the resolution of the two issues that are open.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Lisa<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Elisabeth Blanconil <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eblanconil@gmail.com">eblanconil@gmail.com</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;">hi! Folks,<br><br>
I roughly understand that all this is to keep this WG buzy for another year on IDNA, in destroying every agreement we painfully found. The target is to give some delays to ICANNN. So they can register new gTLDs but no IDNgTLD before every ccTLD has signed a contract with ICANN. It sounds reasonable and I am glad many participate. <br>
<br>
To obtain it; it was just enough to restart again the boring issues. This is why I am surprised nobody thought to discuss TATWEEL yet. What is the technical difference between TATWELL's disputed consensus case and the eszett and the greek final sigma cases? Also what about French majuscules and other issues that we have started the list. <br>
<br>
Best<br><font color="#888888">
Elisabeth Blanconil<br><br><br>
</font><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Idna-update mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>