- From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld@dkuug.dk>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1993 10:24:08 +0200
- To: Rick Troth <TROTH@ricevm1.rice.edu>, Andr'e PIRARD <PIRARD@vm1.ulg.ac.be>, "Robert G. Moskowitz" <0003858921@mcimail.com>, ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM, ietf-822@dimacs.rutgers.edu, ietf@cnri.reston.va.us, WG-CHAR@rare.nl, Multi-byte Code Issues <ISO10646@jhuvm.rare.nl>
Rick Troth writes: > >Also I would like to emphasis the need for world-wide solutions. > >This would mean that ISO 8859-1 would not be a good candidate, > >we need something ASCII based (or even with a smaller repertoire > >than ASCII to cover the problems with EBCDIC and national ISO 646 > >variants). > > I don't understand the warrant here, Keld. You're right that > we need world-wide solutions and you're right that we should have some- > thing ASCII based. How does these make ISO 8859-1 a bad choice? Because 8859-1 does not run on every computer in the world, and we cannot expect it to do so, ever. 8859-1 is for western Europe. Mandating 8859-1 would introduce the same problems for the rest of the world that Western Europe (where I live) have had for decades with ASCII. > I've spent a significant part of *my* life working with others > toward a true solution to the ASCII <---> EBCDIC problem. Some form > of concensus was reached a long time ago and folks have successfully > "beat IBM over the head" with it, and IBM has finally acknowledged a > "de facto network EBCDIC" [my term] which they call CodePage 1047. > CP 1047 maps one-for-one with ISO 8859-1. The mapping of 1047/8859-1 > is the most palatable mapping to the most sites on the InterNet. It only works for Western European languages. Keld --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Sunday, 11 July 1993 01:25:17 UTC