> >> Channeling my inner Maslow, I see the present text as best, an additional
> >> sentence or two as next best, a sentence and a cite to the downgrade doc
> >> next in line, and including actual EAI examples in this doc as the worst
> >> choice.
> >
> > The problem I have with the current text is that it says 'what' motivated
> > the change, but not how it is useful for the intended class of uses. The
> > reader is left entirely to guess.
> So, is it better to put in a sentence about representing non-ASCII
> text in the group name without including a replyable address?
> Or is it better to remove the notation about the EAI use case, and
> just say that it's stupid to have the restriction, so we're removing
> it?
If the alternative is to dig into EAI in any depth at all, the latter is far
preferable.
Ned
