[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Matching and comparison
- To: idn@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Re: Matching and comparison
- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:02:27 -0800
- Delivery-date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:02:01 -0800
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
At 09:13 AM 1/22/00 -0800, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>Why not now? If there are no non-Unicode ways to meet the other
>requirements in the requirements spec, I think we should deal with Unicode
>in the requirements spec. If there are multiple methods, we shouldn't.
Ignore that. I was getting a bit religious and forgetting what should and
should not be in a requirements document.
>I don't think we're being truthful by doing "indirect" requirements. Your
>requirements document was written in a different political environment
>than this one. Maybe they're similar, but I certainly hope not.
Kind of ignore that too. I still think we *can* say that we need
canonicalization in the requirements document, but not that we have to.
Sorry for the stridency in the earlier message.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium