> From: Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> > It's unclear what you're trying to get at here. A URI scheme is a > protocol element (an "assigned number") registered by IANA, not a > piece of text (see RFCs 1958 and 2277). As such, it has no need of > an indication of language, for it has no language; it is a language- > independent protocol element. This point was made in response to Mr. Morfin on more than one occasion within the LTRU WG. He appears to be unwilling to accept it, however. > ought to be a means of indicating language in IDNs. However, that is > primarily an issue with the IDN specification(s), not with the document > under discussion (except to the extent that the document under > discussion extends the likely length of tags In comparison to RFC 3066, the draft does not extend the likely length of tags. The likely length of tags is precisely the same as before; the main difference is that this draft imposes significant structural constraints on tags. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf