Yes, I find the original paragraph to be very odd. It's a bit like having a paragraph:
"The IDNA specification is written in the English language, which avoids the significant delays that would be inherent in waiting for a different and specific human language to be developed for IDN purposes by some other standards developing organization." I think the paragraph best omitted, but if you really need something, perhaps wording like: IDNA uses the Unicode character repertoire, which is the universal character encoding jointly developed by the Unicode Consortium and ISO/IEC SC2, and which is widely deployed on computer systems. Mark __________________________________ http://www.macchiato.com ► “Eppur si muove” ◄ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Nordmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Erik Nordmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 14:37 Subject: Re: [idn] IDNA problem statement > > Erik Nordmark <Erik dot Nordmark at sun dot com> wrote: > > > > > IDNA uses the Unicode character repertoire, which avoids the > > > significant delays that would be inherent in waiting for a different > > > and specific character set be defined for IDN purposes by some other > > > standards developing organization. > > > > I still don't see the point of this passage. It sounds as though some > > other standards organization would be better equipped to develop a > > character set than SC 2/WG 1 or UTC, but we're going with Unicode > > anyway, just for the sake of expediency. Is that the intent? If not, > > what purpose does the "which" clause serve? > > I guess it could have been phrased better. > The intent of the paragraph is to say that the even though the WG has > discussed that Unicode might not be ideal, the (rough) consensus in the WG > is to not prod some body outside the IETF (be it UTC or ISO or somebody else) > to develop something potentially better than Unicode and wait for the result. > > Thus in terms of a problem statement, this is a constraint (quite resonable > one at that :-) that the WG placed on itself. > > Erik > > >
