W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-charsets@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Registration of new charsets UTF-32, UTF-32BE, UTF32LE

From: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
To: Mark Davis <markdavis34@home.com>
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Mark Davis <mark.davis@us.ibm.com>, ned.freed@mrochek.com, ietf-charsets@iana.org
Message-id: <01K3FL24POGK002XZW@mauve.mrochek.com>
> Thanks for your feedback. I will resubmit them.

> Comments:

> A. If each charset needs to be in a separate message, then you really ought
> to fix http://www.normos.org/ietf/bcp/bcp19.txt. It says:

> "5.  Charset Registration Template

>      To: ietf-charsets@iana.org
>      Subject: Registration of new charset [names]"

> with the word "names" in plural. This is misleading.

The rest of the regisration form clearly talks about a single charset with
multiple names, so I'm not sure I buy your reasoning here. However, since we
want to discourage the use of any aliases, I have no problem with changing it
to "name" singular.

> B. UTF-32 in Unicode, as with UTF-16, could be BOM-less, with the
> orientation being determined by a higher-level protocol. The IETF
> registration (with good reason!) can impose a further restriction, as it
> does with UTF-16, that BOM-less UTF-16 must be BE. I will put such a clause
> in the registration.

Which means the UTC has apparently learned nothing from the UTF-16 disaster.
If we push back on this is there any hope of getting this botch fixed?

				Ned
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 12:22:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 June 2006 15:10:51 GMT