Determining the basic approach

Paul Hoffman phoffman at
Thu May 1 17:07:39 CEST 2008

At 7:07 PM +0900 4/30/08, Martin Duerst wrote:
>At 16:36 08/04/30, James Seng wrote:
>>I support 1, 2, 3. I somewhat support (b) (afterall, I am involved in
>>the drafting).
>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
>some pointers.

We are discussing what we want the WG to include in the protocol that 
we produce. Not supporting one or more features doesn't mean that you 
don't want them ever, just not in the protocol that the WG is to work 
on in the immediate future.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list