>>> that we want to use ToASCII while no current (i.e. not obsolete) >>> document contains a definition of it. I seem to recall one of the >>> other co-authors looking into it and finding this was acceptable, >>> but I don't recall. Dave, can you comment? >> >> It would be highly unusual to use such a reference. I will most >> likely nit about that.
> Interestingly, the document that made it historical refers to it for > more than a reference saying it has been replaced. That is, it makes a > substantive comment on it. I caught up on the back and forth on IDNA. The incompatibilities between IDN2003 and IDN2008 are limited to the encoding of two uncommon characters, which the IDNA group think is not a big deal, hence their decision not to change the xn-- prefix. Really, we should change the references to the current standard. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
