Mr. Seng, It is not. When the authors respond to my question I'll be in a position to judge which change to suggest. Mr. Klensin is quite capable of offering yet another suggestion. If you would be so kind as to provide a pointer to the versions which had a conflict with [30] I would appreciate it. I don't have -01 - -04 at hand (if I ever did), and never would have noticed [30] if momentary circumstances had not given me pause to think. I trust you don't mean CCS or CES or charset uniqueness. If you ment the -06 [17], then there is a possible overlap of requirements with -06 [30]. My longer note to Jony covered this, the use of "8" (digit) as a alpha-tuple in Algonquin family orthographies, e.g., in the Canadian Maritimes, Northern New England and Quebec -- W8banakia. Of course -06 [17] can be read as flatly contradicting -06 [30]. I'm at a loss as to what to make of your sudden politness. Eric
Re: [idn] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-requirements-06.txt
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sat, 12 May 2001 18:51:05 -0700
- [idn] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-id... Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- Re: [idn] Re: I-D ACTION:draf... John C Klensin
- Re: [idn] Re: I-D ACTION:draf... James Seng/Personal
- Re: [idn] Re: I-D ACTION:draf... Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- Re: [idn] Re: I-D ACTION:draf... John C Klensin
