<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Mati is correct; the UTC recommendation urges a transition plan to go along with making Sharp-S and Final Sigma PVALID.<div><br></div><div>v</div><div><br><div><div>On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Matitiahu Allouche wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> Heelo, Vint!</font> <br> <br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">In your PDF file, the UTC is listed in the column approving both Sharp S and Sigma as PValid. I have not kept Lisa Moore's original message on behalf of the UTC, but I seem to remember that their approval of the 2 characters was not unconditional, but depending on finding some way to deal with the transition.</font> <br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">I think that this would at least justify adding a note as you did for Andrew Sullivan.</font> <br> <br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">And it is specially important to correctly qualify UTC's vote, since it represents a body of many persons, with significant technical knowledge and vested interest.<br> <br> Shalom (Regards), Mati<br> Bidi Architect<br> Globalization Center Of Competency - Bidirectional Scripts<br> IBM Israel<br> Phone: +972 2 5888802 Fax: +972 2 5870333 Mobile: +972 52 2554160<br> </font> <br> <br> <br> <table width="100%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">From:</font> </td><td><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Vint Cerf <<a href="mailto:vint@google.com">vint@google.com</a>></font> </td></tr><tr valign="top"> <td><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">To:</font> </td><td><font size="1" face="sans-serif"><a href="mailto:idna-update@alvestrand.no">idna-update@alvestrand.no</a></font> </td></tr><tr valign="top"> <td><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Date:</font> </td><td><font size="1" face="sans-serif">09/12/2009 11:08</font> </td></tr><tr valign="top"> <td><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Subject:</font> </td><td><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results</font> </td></tr><tr valign="top"> <td><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Sent by:</font> </td><td><font size="1" face="sans-serif"><a href="mailto:idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no">idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no</a></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <hr noshade=""> <br> <br> <br><tt><font size="2">Attached is a PDF of the spreadsheet I maintained during the past <br> week's discussions. If you detect errors or omissions, kindly advise.<br> <br> It is also important to note that the Unicode Technical Committee <br> responded to a formal request for their opinion that Sharp-S and Final <br> Sigma should be PVALID<br> <br> On the basis of this information, I think we have rough consensus in <br> the IDNABIS Working Group that Sharp-S and Final Sigma should be made <br> PVALID.<br> <br> The consensus call did not refer to the joiner/non-joiners and I <br> continue to believe that the WG has long since concluded these should <br> stay in CONTEXTJ<br> <br> With regard to transition, there is considerable diversity among the <br> WG as to preferences. In an absolute sense, the specification of a <br> protocol (the set of proposed RFCs developed during IDNABIS WG effort) <br> is independent of its introduction, so it might be argued that the WG <br> does not need to specify an adoption or transition plan. As a <br> practical matter, of course, something has to happen for the results <br> to get into use.<br> <br> Perhaps a small step forward would be for the editor of Rationale to <br> make reference to the need for operators (I use this term in its most <br> general sense to include registries, registrars, makers of software <br> that rely on the DNS, etc) to assess their adoption plans in the <br> context of an environment that includes a mix of IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 <br> "speakers" for a period of time likely to be measurable in years.<br> <br> I will try to produce a possible transition synthesis drawn from <br> various suggestions in the WG discussion on transition - however, that <br> will take another couple of days as I am tied up with all-day meetings <br> today and tomorrow.<br> <br> This message, however, is intended to convey to the WG and the AD that <br> the chair believes we have rough consensus on making Sharp-S and Final <br> Sigma PVALID in IDNA2008.<br> <br> Vint Cerf<br> <br> [attachment "consensus call sharp S final sigma.pdf" deleted by Matitiahu Allouche/Israel/IBM] <br> _______________________________________________<br> Idna-update mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br> </font></tt><a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update"><tt><font size="2">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</font></tt></a><tt><font size="2"><br> </font></tt> <br> <br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>