Rule H (was: Re: New version, draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-02.txt, available)

JFC Morfin jefsey at
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 
( 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 mailing list