On Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 12:00, Tom Hacohen wrote: > This looks like a mistake statement rather than a binding rule. Well at least to me it's pretty clear that this is not the case.
> Even if that's true, look at my second statement (which you redacted in > your reply): I'm not arguing whether the boundaries produced by this process is good or not. I'm just saying that to me, the test data is consistent with the operational model and rules of UAX#29 as it exists. Best, Daniel
