From: Kent Karlsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 16:06:10 CDT
I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though
9 is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10.
That is just a (very strange) usage, not different characters from
the ordinary 0-9.
Den 2010-08-02 19.54, skrev "Doug Ewell" <email@example.com>:
> "Luke-Jr" <luke at dashjr dot org> wrote:
>> I've copied an updated draft proposal to:
>> I believe I have addressed all of the suggestions raised to my earlier draft.
>> Please let me know what you all think.
> If it were up to me, which it is not, I would consider this proposal
> suitable for posting on the CSUR site.
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ¡©
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 04 2010 - 16:07:41 CDT