Re: Eszett and IDNAv2 vs IDNA2008

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

At 7:53 PM +0100 3/15/09, Cary Karp wrote:
>The subject line of this thread implies that an individual member of a
>working group can unilaterally draft a replacement to the documentation
>that provided the basis for the w.g. charter, and expect that
>alternative to be given equal consideration by the w.g.
>
>Is that the way things work?

No: there cannot be any such expectation.

Such an individual member can write a draft at any time, of course. They can bring the draft to the attention of the WG by sending a message to the list. At that point, it is up to the WG consensus process, as determined by the WG chair, to decide what to do. Obvious choices are "abandon the WG drafts and adopt the new one" and "ignore the new one and keep on with the current WG drafts". There are a lot of other non-obvious choices as well.

Note that IDNAv2 is not the only outside draft that this WG might want to consider. For example, draft-jet-idnabis-cjk-localmapping also deals with this WG's work, and might be adopted, ignored, or something else.