- From: Borka Jerman-Blazic <jerman-blazic@ijs.si>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 00:11:45 +0200
- To: wg-char@rare.nl
- Cc: ietf-charsets <ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM>
I do agree whith what is Harald suggesting. We need a sort of common approach to all listed services including MIME and that is why we in Europe decided to put this issue on the IETF agenda. We have worked in Europe on the problem and realised that as an international community we have to come to some common agreement acceptable to everybody. I know that the problem is very difficult but in general we all agree that a definition of a common denominator for the character sets support has to be worked out. We do not have any other way (the other way can be a MESS on the Internet).i I went very quickly over Ohta san comments on the BOF Minutes and find out that even he agree on the common issues to be worked out. Please, try to be fair and try to focuss the discussion on things that matter and not onn "manegment" or "policy etc". The last Ned and John mail explain everything we have to know about IETF WGs. The Ohtasan remarks: >> Identity for encoding and decoding which he > The >> discussion showed that the proposed solution is not in the general > >stream of the development of the standard character set codes and > >their applications in the computing systems. >"the general stream of the development"? What's that? It was only that my >proposal was not compatible with UCS4. It is, now. Do you know any other scheme of development of character sets code on international level? I do not. i >> He proposed an extension to the >> existing UCS code system consisting of 5 additional bits which will >> enable the deficiency of the UCS coding system to be overcomed. >> In the discussion the problem of handling of >> bidirectional text was also identified. >Handling of bidirectionality is identified by me and solved in my proposal >(1 of 5 additional bits is used only for bidirectionality). John Klensin's >comment turned out to be a code conversion issue, later. What is the problem with the text of the BOF? >> He also recommended the use of mailing lists >> already working within IETF. They are: <ietf-charsets@innosoft.com> >> and two others working on mailing issues (822ext and 821). >He (John Klensin) has recommended 822ext!!!!!????? Any comment, John? O.K. Maybe this was misunderstanding or somebody else mentioned this list, but this is not a big issue. If the character sets support in MIME is discussed then we will need all these people who developed MIME to comment I am not seeing any problem here. >> As a summary the BOF decided to propose to IESG to consider the possi- >> bility of setting up of a working group to work on the following work- >> ing items: >I have several comments. >> - a document defining how UCS can be used in a uniform way in >> Internet protocols, especially taking in consideration the UTF-2 >> encoding of UCS. The document will provide guidance to other >> protocols which have to deal with these items over the Internet, >It was agreed to have some text encoding method based on 10646, but >not especially UTF-2. It is said "taking in consideration" that does not imply that UTF-2 is the ultimate solution. >> -a document identifying the languages and the characters required for >> coding text written in particular natural language >Yes. >> (a sort of >> guidelines for services dealing with multilinguality such as NIR >> service based on usage of plein text), >What do you mean? Aren't you assuming MIME-like labeling of character >sets each containing only a limited number of characters? I do not mean anything. We just pointed out the most concerned services based on plein text and that is all about. We did not suggest any solution! >> -a document defining a tool for coded character sets conversion to be >> provided within some services such as e-mail user agent including >> fall-back representation of incoming characters that are outside the >> supported character repertoire of the receiver, >Yes. Shouldn't we also address input issues for outgoing characters from >ASCII environment? This is contained in it implicitly. >> -a proposal for extending the mandatory issues which have to be >> covered in the RFC standardization process to include character set >> consideration/support. >Really? Hmmm. Good luck. O.K. Let us try. Maybe the problem is so difficult and we will not come to an agreement but what is your proposal? Borka p.s I am still on INET93 and have some difficulties in reaching my host so please do not bomb me with comments at once. v --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 1993 15:12:32 UTC