On 9/28/2020 5:55 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
I also agree that it shouldn't be restrained.
...
I also find the "limited" sets of reactions for certain systems to be
entirely too restrictive.
Excellent. Maybe that's settled.
But now I'll go a slightly different direction: I'm a fan of the word
"extensible" and the phrase "priming the pump".
Interoperability is about shared details.
The draft specification does that, to one level, but it might be worth
putting a tiny layer on top of that: I'm wondering about adding a
section the offers and entirely optional initial set to use, so people
can choose to start with something in common. If they wish.
This would be a non-normative set -- I don't even see a benefit in
classing it as a MAY, since, really, it's a tiny subset of the Unicode list.
d/
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822