On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 02:23:50PM +0200, Erik Nordmark wrote: > > > BTW, if IDN display issue deserves this specification, why doesn't IDN > > copy&paste recommendation have its place in the document ? > > I think copy&paste is a kind of higher-layer communication protocol between > > processes which may reside on the same machine or on the two different > > machines. That requires proper negotiations between applications/OSes to > > work correctly. > > I think this would be a slippery slope.
I agree. > If we think copy&paste > needs to be specified in the standard, then the case can be made > the other implementation specific inter-application communication mechanisms > (such as Unix pipes etc) warrant the same level of specification. Sure it is. copy&paste is the only available input method of exotic foreigh scripts to most end users. I think IDN copy&paste issue is closer to IDN *input* issue. Input and Display should receive the same concerns. > > Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing a well-informed and well-written > informational document which discusses implementation issues around copy&paste > if such a document provides useful information to the community. > Do you think above IDN display issue can be separated from the IDNA document and then be put into new "Informational" supplementary document ? > Erik
