[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Atom and bidi

To: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Atom and bidi
From: James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:35:18 -0700
Cc: Atom Syntax <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=rZljY3u0ut9O4O9ardTWKKegFvHcfdnBrFUceCtaUzRQ0kRva+mJEXrRuOg3FrzP+5DCUh8NuErlWaa0sc04f9YHyoPLNEUzm3UBURWFDRQetTKgzOvinlYjbBwaqok7oEHcQ/qEZOOb4I31IPx2HwAEJuDFofsheSqx6BA99V8=
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <C148EA42.BCA6C%eric.scheid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4522B295.3090704@xxxxxxxxx> <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060909)

Yep, I'll work up a pace.

- James

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
> This is sounding, smelling, and tasting like a rathole. Having fought
> the bidi wars in IDN, this doesn't surprise me. It's terribly difficult,
> and we don't have any good examples of formats or protocols that have
> gotten it right in a clean fashion. That's not to say we can't do it,
> just that we need to see a proposal with all the wording before we
> decide if it is right.
> 
>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Atom and bidi
  - From: Robert Sayre

References:
- Re: Atom and bidi
  - From: Eric Scheid
- Re: Atom and bidi
  - From: James M Snell
- Re: Atom and bidi
  - From: Paul Hoffman

Prev by Date: Re: Clarify foreign markup: [was Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?]
Next by Date: PaceAtomBidi
Previous by thread: Re: Atom and bidi
Next by thread: Re: Atom and bidi
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread