[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: Eeek - .NU Domains using $B%h(J
, $B%H(J ,
$B%J(J
, $B%o(J,
$B%`(J
- And More
- To: James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
- Subject: Re: Fwd: Eeek - .NU Domains using $B%h(J
, $B%H(J ,
$B%J(J
, $B%o(J,
$B%`(J
- And More
- From: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:20:24 +0900
- Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, idn@ops.ietf.org
- Delivery-date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 21:02:34 -0800
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
At 11:01 00/01/09 +0800, James Seng wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Martin J. Duerst wrote:
> > 'Why not?' is a valuable answer. I read it as 'Nice to have,
> > but not a requirement.' So if in the design phase, we run
> > into too many constraints, we may have to give up on this
> > one rather than on some more important ones.
>
> This is true. Perhaps we should classified this requirement as "SHOULD"
> and not "MUST". This reminds me...anyone going to sit down and write out
> the first draft-draft?
I would rather make that a MAY then. Except for the western digit case,
and similar cases that may come up, which are clearly needed, I haven't
seen any claim for a need for mixing in the general case, and Harald
has pointed out that some cases of undesirable naming conflicts can
be avoided if we exclude the general case.
Regards, Martin.
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-# mailto:duerst@w3.org http://www.w3.org