mappings-01 and the general procedure

[Erik van der Poel]

The "instead" is fine. I was only pointing out that "appliction" was
misspelled, and that the general procedure is not in the right order.
(The NFC step should be last.)

Also, I would prefer an IDNAbis that does not specify applying NFC
twice (once in the mappings draft and once in the protocol draft). It
doesn't seem necessary.

Erik

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Paul Hoffman<phoffman at imc.org> wrote:
> At 9:37 AM -0700 7/12/09, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>>Although mappings-01 clearly states that "an appliction[sp] might want
>>to implement" mappings that are more compatible with IDNA2003 instead,
>>I wonder whether implementors will figure out that the order of the
>>above steps is somewhat different from that of IDNA2003, and that some
>>strings would be mapped differently.
>
> I'm not sure how to say that better than "instead". Suggested wording?
>