Mapping Poll - REQUEST

[Paul Hoffman]

At 8:12 AM -0800 2/8/10, Mark Davis ? wrote:
>I don't believe that adopting the current mapping document as-is would be particularly useful.   It has a number of flaws in coverage, especially outside of Latin, and I know of no major vendor that has indicated that they would actually use the mapping, so there is little tangible support for it. Because it is only informative, dropping it has no real effect on the rest of IDNA2008.

I want to drill into this a bit. There is a large difference between someone thinking a document is not "particularly useful" and "dropping it", meaning it does not get published. The former part makes it sound like you are OK with the publication of -mapping, but the latter makes it sound like you are actively opposed to the current -mapping being published as an Informational RFC. If the latter is the case, I would want to hear the logic of that with respect to the IETF rules for Informational RFCs.