Subject: Re: [iucg] [Gen-art] LC review: draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06.txt

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:25:02 +0200

At 11:14 06/10/2009, Martin J. Dürst wrote:

>On 2009/10/06 14:25, Vint Cerf wrote:
> > i think adding text about relationship to tables is the minimum
> > requirement. removing reference to CS has been proposed and if no one
> > objects to that alternative it might be the least confusing choice.
>
>I object to the removal of CS, because specs other than IDNA might make
>use of BIDI. Please see my previous mail.

+1
jfc

PS. Since I cannot be recorded in the idna-update archives, I suggest 
that contributing users who can consider supporting Martin's 
position. This is not a vote, but it is important to show if there is 
agreement or not to support CS removal.

---

From: Marie-France Berny <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:01:28 +0200

>> use of BIDI. Please see my previous mail.
+1
Removing them adds nothing to IDNA but may create an additional problem with
idnaplus when we succeeded in miniminzing them quite to nil. What would be
the interest?
Marie-France Berny

---

From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:03:22 +0200

2009/10/6 Marie-France Berny <[email-masked]>

> Removing them adds nothing to IDNA but may create an additional problem
> with idnaplus when we succeeded in miniminzing them quite to nil. What would
> be the interest?
>

I object to a removal at this stage. The current IDNA document set has been
reviewed by many people we asked if it could support the international
semantic addressing scheme we work on. The response was positive and we
therefore joined the WG consensus. Removing CS at this stage is something we
cannot accept as it would call for new review round. This would call at
least for one month, work, time, explanations, and probably some credibility
loss with experts of whose we need further cooperation.

Unless obviously if there is a clear dirimant reason? But this does not seem
to be the case?

Portzamparc

---

From: Patrick Suger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:54:54 +0200

+1
For the reasons given below and because I think this is a point the Arabic
mailing list should address first.
Best.
PS

2009/10/6 jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>

> Unless obviously if there is a clear dirimant reason? But this does not
> seem to be the case?
>
> Portzamparc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iucg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg
>
>