Backwards compatibility (was: Re: Wwhich RFCs the new work would obsolete, vs update or leave alone)

Paul Hoffman phoffman at
Tue Mar 18 21:21:34 CET 2008

At 11:25 AM -0700 3/18/08, Mark Davis wrote:
>For more information on possible preprocessing, see the rough draft 

The steps there look interesting. However, I'm *very* concerned with 
putting this forward with the current wording in the document, given 
that it goes against one of the core changes in IDNA200x from the 
design team, namely that pre-processing is optional. The fact that 
you mention the possible need for post-processing makes that even 
more poignant.

If you mean this proposal to be optional, please reword it a bit more 
carefully for that. If you mean it to be required, then that might 
cause a reset of the charter.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list