>> 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? I'm ambivalent. Barry