Re: Charset policy - Post Munich

Misha Wolf (
Mon, 01 Sep 1997 22:15:29 +0000 (GMT)

Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 22:15:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: Misha Wolf <>
Subject: Re: Charset policy - Post Munich
In-reply-to: <>
To: IETF Charsets <ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM>,
Message-id: <>

[I'm copying this mail to the unicode list.  If any Unicoder responds, 
please copy your response to (]

A couple of minor comments:

>     (Note: ISO 10646 calls the UTF-8 CES a "Transfer Format" rather
>     than a "character encoding scheme", but it fits the charset report
>     definition of a character encoding scheme).

As I'm on the road (actually at the Eleventh International Unicode 
Conference), I don't have access to the ISO 10646 amendments.  I think 
that ISO 10646 calls UTF-8 a "Transformation Format", not a "Transfer 
Format".  Can anyone check this?  RFC 2130 contains many incorrect 
definitions including those of ASCII (!) and of UTF; please let's not 
add to them.

>     Note also that a language is distinct from a POSIX locale; a POSIX
>     locale identifies a set of cultural conventions, which may imply a
>     language (the POSIX or "C" locale of course do not), while a
>     language tag as described in RFC 1766 identifies only a language.

Would it be helpful to add quotes round the instance of POSIX inside the 
brackets?  The third line of the above para would become:

      language (the "POSIX" or "C" locale of course do not), while a

Misha Wolf            Email:     85 Fleet Street
Standards Manager     Voice: +44 171 542 6722           London EC4P 4AJ
Reuters Limited       Fax  : +44 171 542 8314           UK
Eleventh International Unicode Conference, Sep 2-5 1997,

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual  sender,
except  where  the  sender  specifically  states them to be the views of
Reuters Ltd.

--Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)