Re: Call for proposals

Borka Jerman-Blazic (borka@e5.ijs.si)
Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:38:54 +0200


Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:38:54 +0200
From: Borka Jerman-Blazic <borka@e5.ijs.si>
Subject: Re: Call for proposals
In-reply-to: "Your message of Thu, 13 Jun 1996 19:09:16 +0200."
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: Lueko.Willms@t-online.de (Luko Willms), borka@e5.ijs.si,
Message-id: <199606131038.AA12221@pehtra.e5.ijs.si>

> > >    Preamble
> > >   
> > > Development of the Universal Character Set makes it possible for th=
> > e first
> > > time in Europe to serve the needs of small nationalities in computi=
> > ng
> > > environments as well as the larger market communities who themselve=
> > s must
> > > urgently implement solutions to the problem of multilingual computi=
> > ng
> > 
> >   "the first time" is not correct.
> 
> Agreed. ISO 8859 was the first attempt.

It was an attempt but not for the current needs in a cyberworld e.g
do you imagine that people will use for all service the simple
(e.g "ASCII" formated) version of their name even in 
certificates, digital signiture or in electronic commerce (credit
cards are issued by local banks and names are properly spelled?
How much you will trust to a digital signiture with wrong 
spelling of the issuer name?? Using ISO 8859 with
code extension techniques make this very very cumbersome!


> 
> But, the title:
> 
>   Providing multilingual support in middleware: Implementing the Universal
>         Character Set ISO 10646 in the European Information Society
> 
> is very good to express that ISO 10646 has universal only with
> intra-European scope.
> 
> >    Maybe just UCS and Unicode will be more readily and more widely ad=
> > opted.
> 
> For you, maybe.
> 
> But, for us outside of European culture, the difference between
> ISO 8859/1 and ISO 10646 is negligible.

Disagree, but not first time with Ohta san.




--Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)