[Gen-art] LC review: draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06.txt
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue Oct 6 11:14:08 CEST 2009
On 2009/10/06 14:25, Vint Cerf wrote:
> 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.
I object to the removal of CS, because specs other than IDNA might make
use of BIDI. Please see my previous mail.
> 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)?
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
More information about the Idna-update