Proposed document structure and content for IDNA
jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Jul 10 23:12:53 CEST 2008
this seems _perfect_ and able to be fast and clear. Thank you.
Just one thing: to use "ISO 10646" than "Unicode".
May be someone could individually document the rationale of the
choices having been made.
Have Franck's historic pages been found back ?
At 20:24 10/07/2008, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>At 12:09 PM -0600 7/10/08, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >Will the commentary/history/rationale go into an informational
> >document of some kind, or will that back story be lost in the
>My preference would be the latter. The "back story" is quite
>different depending on who you talk to. The folks who did the heavy
>lifting to write the first drafts have different rationale and
>history from those who are doing the current reviews.
>One example that was brought out at the Philly meeting by a few
>people is the wide disagreement about how much IDNA2008 was "needed".
>There are similar disagreements for almost every revision to major
>IETF protocols. (I'm still living with the aftermath of IKEv2, for
>example.) I'm quite skeptical that we could get WG consensus on much
>of the rationale, or even the commentary.
>The WG mailing list archives will, of course, live forever. That
>should be sufficient for any implementer who really needed to
>understand why the WG agreed to some particular part of the spec.
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update