To this, Dan Connolly writes:
>I agree. But I am against putting it in the 2.0 document at this
>point. Heck: the thing is in last call! I'll be careful not to
>do anything that conflicts with deployment of ISO10646, but
>I don't want to make that jump yet.
>
>How is "The Multilingual Web" doing? Have you submitted it as an
>internet draft yet? We've argued these issues to the point that we're
>starting to "swirl." We should have a document in front of us, and we
>should be niggling over the p's and q's.
>
>Eric: what are the milestones now? When do we expect to have the
>internationalization stuff ready?
I greatly appreciate the determination for getting things out fast,
and it may indeed be already too late. But comming mainly
from the multilingual side, I have to warn against settling most
other problems, whereas leaving open or not as clear as possible
the multilingual issue. Most places around the world know how
to get a quick and dirty solution for their local needs, and that
may result again if we separate internationalization from the
other issues.
Regards, Martin.