Protocol-08 (and status of Defs-04 and Rationale-06)

[Harald Alvestrand]

Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> I'm concerned that the proposed rules are overly broad, if a label can 
> be 63 characters, and the claim is that no two of them can have 
> properties A and B, where one has property A and one has property B, 
> then is the proposed rule true for some positional possibilities, but 
> not all, or true for all.
>
> If all, then the rule is minimal. If only some, then it would be nice, 
> at least, to be able to describe, and algorithmically would be really 
> nice, the set(s) for which the rule is correct, and the set(s) for 
> which the rule is incorrect.
>
> I'm happy to continue this off-list, as my original, and similar query 
> about rule 4 didn't get to "what do we know and how do we know it". 
Eric,

if you want to look at my Perl code, you're welcome to it.

Warning: It's not pretty.

                 Harald