> >> 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? If the alternative is to dig into EAI in any depth at all, the latter is far preferable. Ned