Rule H (was: Re: New version,
jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Jun 13 02:02:52 CEST 2007
>At 00:01 13/06/2007, John C Klensin wrote:
>You (and others) may reasonably disagree, but please read either or
>both of Harald's recent explanation or the one that follows (I hope
>they are consistent and complementary) and then try to help us with
>this rather than stirring up more FUD.
I am sorry if some thought that.
I will come back on your technical point once I have read it again,
very slowly with the Draft. I came to this work because I felt a lot
has been achieved with IDNAbis, it could work, and we need it. I did
not know the Rule H matter was that touchy. I just though it might be
the last time you could discuss it. My suggestion was only to get
into the text something like what you write here: to obtain the
understanding and adhesion of the not supported people, and motivate
them working on a precise improvement charter/calendar.
Now, I see what you already went into. I am much more interested but
please give me time, because I have possibly wrong suggestions in
mind. Just remember you are the geeks, my only added value is to be a
document test-bed, as a "lead user" and an operator.
Also, because what you say might add a new item to the "todo" list
(http://mltf.org/draft-mltf-marcel-ldep-00.htm) we try to compile.
>Your notes, and those of several others on this list and otherwise
>have raised another issue having to do with the relationship of
>"language" to all of this. I'll address that in a separate note.
FYI there is an informal JTC1/SC32/WG2 - TC 37 meeting in NY on July
12. They call for questions.
If you are interested I can copy you my mail to the convenor.
More information about the Idna-update