- From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>
- Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1993 13:08:07 +0900 (JST)
- To: jerman-blazic@ijs.si (Borka Jerman-Blazic)
- Cc: wg-char@rare.nl, ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM
> >The problem is just saying UTF2 does not have enough precision. > > >10646 is too vague. > > O.K, but it was one of the purposes for invating the people to the BOF. > Because 10 646 is too vague and because just saying UTF2 does not give > enough precision we had the BOF. BOF minutes do not imply anything final. > They just indicates that some work has to be done. Don't you understand that? > The charter of a WG indicates more precisely what is the goal/aims of the work. > I thought that is enough clear to you. So, did I object your plan of the charter? I proposed extension for input support, which you have had in mind already. I clarify to what extent multilinguality purpued. And? What is your problem? > >> No one is expecting from you to do it yourself but you have a proposal > >> don't you?? > > >So, if we, like ISO, successfully created a chimeric monster, I will > >actively agree that protocol-wise specification is necessary. > > O.K, but how do you know in advance that we will create a chimeric monster?? I don't know but I hope not. But, I have never objected to include the proposal in the charter. I only said "good luck". Does that matter? Masataka Ohta --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 1993 21:13:00 UTC