For the avoidance of doubt (because numerous people have poked me about
it): I had originally intended to send Rob a note offlist, but changed
my mind yet forgot to remove the "OFFLIST" string at the start of the
message. Replies onlist are welcome.
On 2/16/25 5:09 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
OFFLIST
On 2/16/25 4:43 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 3:20 PM Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 2/15/25 4:26 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> Makes sense. But that implies a container format that PRECIS
did not
> mention either.
How so? Perhaps you could provide a definition of container format,
beacuse it's not clear to me why the PRECIS specs would have
needed to
specify container formats.
They don't need to. The point is that PRECIS is vague (slotted where?)
from one direction, and this draft is also similarly vague.
Since that vagueness seems to be causing confusion, let's try to make
things less vague. See my reply to John just now.
> Giving the unichars draft a hard time on this point seems a bit
harsh.
Traditionally in standards development,
Mmm, I've been around the block. I phrased it that way on purpose.
OK.
trying to clarify requirements
is not seen as "harsh" but as part of our job. I offered my previous
message in the spirit of collaboratively getting clear on things.
I'd be happy if all of the PRECIS text was deleted from this
draft, but I don't object to it. I don't see this document causing
harm. Worst case, it will be ignored.
And we might be headed in that direction, if indeed this document is
trying to solve a different class of problems than what we addressed in
the IDNA/PRECIS specs. Again, see my most recent reply to John.
Peter
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
