Eszett (Sharp-S) again (was: Re: AW: Oustanding issues trac

JFC Morfin jefsey at
Wed May 28 16:34:03 CEST 2008

At 16:03 28/05/2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>(This is not the same thing as an informational saying, "Here are some
>ways, and the advantages and disadvantages of each."  I can imagine
>such a document, although whether it would be on-charter for this WG I
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64The charter of the wg is to produce 
>the protocol rules essentially and to outline what may have to be 
>the responsibility of registries or registrars for any further restrictions.

Then, in refering to my answer to John on the document organisation, 
I would suggest that:
- this could be introduced in the first "for information" document 
[in order to be clearly documented as out of scope].
- not alluded to in the standard track protocol document.
- your cons and pros could either be in the first document, or in the 
third "practical" document (I suggested it to be a BCP, for easy updates).

More information about the Idna-update mailing list