Just back to send this in copy to all.<br>Elisabeth Blanconil<br><br>-----<br><div class="gmail_quote"><br>Hi! Lisa,<br><br>
there are protocol, architectural, usage, architectonic, business and political issues in IDNA2008. Please let us stop confusing them all. <br>
* protocol issues are well done. Consensus. <br>
* architectural issues are covered by the Charter, confirmed by the Mapping document. Consensus.<br>
* usage issues are out the scope of this WG. Consensus.<br>
* business, political and architectonic issues are every where except in the Charter and the Application Area scope if I am correct. <br><br>
If you want more, please ask IAB, they approved the Charter and wrote a document.<br><br>
The best things have an end, when they are well finished. This is the case for IDNA2008, except if an appeal is necessary to clarify the confusions of the last weeks. <br><br>
Thanks to the Chair. Deep thanks to Pete Resnick. Thanks to all. I will work on IDNA2010. Now, I quit!<br><br>
Elisabeth Blanconil<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/12/21 Lisa Dusseault <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lisa.dusseault@gmail.com" target="_blank">lisa.dusseault@gmail.com</a>></span><div class="im"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On the topic of mappings, I've previously noted<br>
(<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-December/005962.html" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-December/005962.html</a>)<br>
that we had some IETF Last Call issues raised about how compatible our<br>
idnabis-mapping list of mappings is with the mappings of IDNA2003. I'd like<br>
to be sure there's WG consensus on these issues before progressing the<br>
mappings document. If some links out there contain characters that were<br>
required to be mapped in IDNA2003, and software is upgraded to IDNA2008<br>
in a way that makes those links fail, that seems to be something we should<br>
be concerned about. The key issues seem to me to be what the WG opinion<br>
is on having one set of optional mappings for better interoperability, or two<br>
or more to encourage flexibility. Michel Suignard's recent message<br>
(<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-December/006389.html" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-December/006389.html</a>)<br>
seems like a good starting point for that discussion.<br>
<br>
I'm hoping despite the holidays we can conclude these discussions in the<br>
next few weeks, and idnabis-mappings may even be able to catch up with<br>
the other documents.<br>
<br>
Lisa<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Idna-update mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote></div></div><br>
</div><br>