Re-opening discussion about Mapping

Paul Hoffman phoffman at
Mon Feb 8 03:58:02 CET 2010

Just the polling questions from the PDF:

>Working Group Question:
>1. Would the WG like to adopt the current "mapping document" as-is?


>2. Would the WG like to engage in further discussion about this
>document, for example in the context of the Unicode TR46 that
>advocates substantially more mapping than the present "mappings"

No. This seems to me unlikely to come to even rough WG or IETF consensus. Having said that, I would encourage anyone else who has a mapping proposal to consider making it an RFC through the Independent Submissions Editor.

>3. Would the WG propose an alternative path towards dealing with the
>question of mapping and if so, what proposition(s) are offered by the
>WG members?

No. Exhaustion set in months ago.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list