Determining the basic approach
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
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
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
>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.
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
More information about the Idna-update