Determining the basic approach

Martin Duerst duerst at
Wed Apr 30 12:07:27 CEST 2008

At 16:36 08/04/30, James Seng wrote:
>I support 1, 2, 3. I somewhat support (b) (afterall, I am involved in
>the drafting).

For the record, when I said that (among else) I'm against b),
I didn't mean that I'm agaist that RFC. I just meant that we can
leave that as is, and registries can use it, or similar approaches,
without us having to include anything specific in IDNAbis, except
some pointers.

Regards,   Martin.

>I am neutral about 7, 8, 9.
>I am reserved about 4, 5, 6 as I havent fully grasp the implications
>of the changes.
>I am against 11 and (a).
>For 10, I hope this would also include adding more dot separators, e.g. U+FF61.
>-James Seng

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#       mailto:duerst at     

More information about the Idna-update mailing list