[Gen-art] LC review: draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06.txt
vint at google.com
Tue Oct 6 07:25:51 CEST 2009
i think adding text about relationship to tables is the minimum
requirement. removing reference to CS has been proposed and if no one
objects to that alternative it might be the least confusing choice.
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Monday, October 05, 2009 16:28 -0400 Vint Cerf
> <vint at google.com> wrote:
>> make it so.
> To save Harald and Cary work and the rest of us confusion about
> what has been agreed, I think it is clear that some additional
> language is needed (no one has argued against that). The other
> question, I think, is whether "CS" should be taken out. As a
> few people have explained, it is there to avoid redundancies
> with the prohibitions of Tables since the reason why those
> characters are inappropriate really has little or nothing to do
> with Bidi. On the other hand, as Ken points out, while we might
> be concerned about new and problematic characters being
> introduced into some categories, this category doesn't appear to
> be at risk of that, so simply removing it would be harmless to
> everything but a careful application of the principle and might
> make things slightly more clear to the casual reader.
> Have you concluded that there is rough consensus to remove "CS",
> or just to add explanatory text about the relationship to Tables
> (like Andrew, I thought we had agreed on such text at some time
> in the past and was a bit surprised it wasn't there)?
More information about the Idna-update