- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:03:35 +0100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, public-iri@w3.org
- Cc: Michel Suignard <michelsu@microsoft.com>
For the record, I'm entirely satisfied with this response. #g -- At 18:13 12/05/04 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote: >Hello Graham, > >I have listed this as issue normRef-33. > > >At 12:02 04/05/10 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: > >>References >> >>I think RFC2119 should appear under Normative references, not Informative. > >Done. > > >>I don't know about this, but should [UNIV4] and [UNI9] be normative? > >They are referenced in a normative sentence in the bidi section, so >yes, fixed. I guess we could move [UNIV4] out of that, if we really >want (our reference practice seems to lean towards ISO 10646, >rather than Unicode). > >Michel, what do you think? Can you have a look at it? >I guess the reference to 10646 may also need updating, >can you give me the newest version? > > >Regards, Martin. ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2004 09:26:15 UTC