As I suggested, length isn't the reason we're here, and extending it won't make everyone sigh with relief and go back to better, or less contentous, tasks. Therefore, it isn't a design point. Besides, anyone have any guesses as to how hard it would actually be, ignoring the (useful, later) suggestion of abstracting display width from byte count? Let's all, arch-1 and arch-3, and any surviving arch-2, put label length aside until more important problems are solved. Eric
Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (ACE+UTF-8)
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:22:32 -0700
- [idn] Who supports UDNS (ACE+UTF-8... Dan
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... Edmon
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... John C Klensin
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... Eric A. Hall
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... Adam M. Costello
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... Eric A. Hall
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... Marc Blanchet
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... James Seng/Personal
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... deng
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... Eric A. Hall
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... Mark . Andrews
- Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (... Edmon
