Issues lists and the "preprocessing" topic

[Felix Sasaki]

This is a personal comment.

Mark Davis wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised. My impression is that in general people 
> distinctly did not want to see a preprocessing document as part of 
> IDNAbis, and that John and others didn't want to even see it as a 
> separate IETF document.

I think such a document would be valuable. A secondary question is where 
and when it should be written. About the timing, I heard (and support) 
the position that it should no delay the progress of IDNAbis. The most 
important thing is IMO that there is a broad consensus among the IETF, 
Unicode and other standards bodies and users of their technology about 
the role of this document and its relation to IDNAbis. Otherwise both 
might suffer a lot in adoption.

Felix

>
> I'm not sure why you can't see the document. Can you try again, and is 
> anyone else having trouble?
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se 
> <mailto:patrik at frobbit.se>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 21 aug 2008, at 01.59, Mark Davis wrote:
>
>     > Based on comments from John and others at the meeting, however, it
>     > appears
>     > that the working group is fundamentally not interested in having a
>     > common
>     > specification for a mapping phase be part of the IDNAbis, and that
>     > it would
>     > be better done by organizations like Unicode or others. Based on
>     > that, I
>     > modified the draft at
>     http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqr8rd5_51c3nrskcx
>     > , and
>     > submitted it to the UTC for consideration.
>
>
>     A few things:
>
>     I have not seen this consensus you refer to. The contrary. I see
>     support for such a document.
>
>     I personally support such a document in the IETF, and have told you
>     and everyone I have been asked.
>
>     The URI you have above does not resolve. I get back a 404.
>
>     Regarding earlier versions of this document, I think it is a fine
>     start, but too bound to "web based applications". I.e. ok as such, but
>     if applicable to more protocols than web/http, it could be more
>     generic. But see comments on in what order the wg have cycles for
>     working on multiple documents and multiple threads.
>
>        Patrik
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Idna-update mailing list
>     Idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:Idna-update at alvestrand.no>
>     http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>