Hi Peter,
At 09:25 09-10-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
At the least, spelling out these acronyms on first use would be
helpful (e.g., "Unicode Normalization Form KC").
Yes.
Indeed, that appendix consists of notes copied from a wiki page that
the PRECIS WG used to collect the information.
Ok.
follows the recommendations from RFC 4690. If you are going to
maintain that the PRECIS WG has taken on an intractable problem, then
I think you're also arguing that the IDNABIS WG took on an intractable
problem and that IDNA2008 failed to provide a viable solution to the
shortcomings of IDNA2003 and the Nameprep profile of Stringprep.
My view is that the IDNABIS took on a difficult and
politically-sensitive problem. There's an open source implementation
of the specification . IDNABIS had the advantage of being related to
domain names. I'll take back the comment as you did a good write-up. :-)
Regards,
-sm