Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Publication request:draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 12:40:22 -0500

On 5/16/11 10:11 PM, Jiankang YAO wrote:
>    (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
>          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
>          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
>          agree with it?
>
> Many WG participants from IDNAbis and APPSAWG have reviewed this document and
>   had reasonably strong WG consensus.
>    

I'd like at least some discussion here (and probably in the Technical 
Summary for the announcement) of the issue explained by Simon: There was 
at least some controversy and discussion as to whether U+19DA  should be 
made BackwardCompatible. I agree that eventually both WGs came to 
concensus, but I think you should document the issue and its result, 
since it was pretty central.

Other than that, this looks good. Once I have your update, I'll post the 
Last Call.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 17:46:11 -0500

On 5/17/11 12:40 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Summary for the announcement) of the issue explained by Simon:

Correction. I think that probably belongs in the WG Summary, not the 
Technical Summary.

pr