Subject: Re: [idn] Dots, and a path to working IDNs

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Jun 2001 23:14:41 -0000

James Seng/Personal writes:
> it is too vague

It's perfectly clear: ``The long-term IDN solution will encode Unicode
characters as UTF-8 on the wire.'' All you have to do is ask how many
people agree with this statement.

This excludes proposals to redesign Unicode from scratch, for example,
and it excludes Keith's 7-bit-forever proposals. We can skip discussing
those pointless proposals if we have consensus on this statement.

> tag? untag? negiotated? retrofit into the packet?

All of those are possibilities. We don't have consensus on the entire
future Internet protocol suite, but I think we have consensus on one
feature of it.

> We could move forward with a strawpoll if only you have a
> concrete proposal

You said ``I would like to hear some support on this before we run this
poll.'' You heard some support. Why aren't you running the poll?

---Dan

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:23:15 -0400

> and it excludes Keith's 7-bit-forever proposals.

I haven't made any such proposal. then again, you haven't made a proposal 
either.  for once, you are applying the same delusions to others that you
apply to yourself.  I suppose that is an improvement.

Keith

---

From: "Bruce Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:52:51 +0900

> apply to yourself.  I suppose that is an improvement.

This WG would do better if cryptic statements and personal attacks could
be reduced. For example, the above statement could have been phrased
more like:

"I haven't made a '7-bit forever' proposal. My proposals could be more
accurately characterized as '<characterization>' ."

In this way, those of us who aren't sure of what Kieth's proposals are
would be educated, and those of us who don't care about WG members'
delusions could be spared having to think about them.