I'm not sure whether I will be able to find time to review the
mnemonics document properly (poor excuse! :-), but I would like to
make one meta-comment: Greg, if you don't receive many comments from
the working group saying that this document should be proposed as a
standard, I think you should assume that it isn't ready for standard
status. I.e. silence doesn't mean consent. Another possibility is to
threaten to make it a standard, and then see if people complain. :-)
Well, the rfc-mnem is only a 4 page document, and half of it
are introduction, status, acknowledgements etc. The spec has been
very stable for the last year, it still basically describes the same
functionality and formats that was in the first draft. For 2 pages of
technical description, I think this document has been beaten to death
on this list.
rfc-char has been checked thoroughly by independent sources,
as previously stated.
There is at least one serious problem with the "mnemonics" document:
It refers to the "charsets" document, which you say may become an
informational document (as opposed to a standard).
I do not know if this is true, can anybody verify this,
and come to sugestions on how to remedy the problem?
Regards,
Erik
keld