Hi,
I'm puzzled. This seems to be a document that republishes errata for three
standards-track documents and supplements that with advice from the
authors. I didn't know that we had that mixture.
The advice doesn't seem awfully contentious. One can write
IDNA2008-compliant code without this advice, though, so it's not obvious to
me that it ought to be included in a document about IDNA2008.
The document contains a few MUSTs and SHOULDs that interact with the
thirty-odd MUSTs/SHOULDs in the three origin documents. They seem
innocuous, but I'd be happier if one or two implementers were to say
they've implemented the new MUSTs and they're good. OTOH if new MUSTs lead
to no new code, why publish?
I suppose I'm on the fence here.
Arnt
(As an aside, "5891bis" is a poor name for a document that has no text in
common with 5891. I tried to review this by reading the diff, that wasn't
smart.)
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
