- From: John C Klensin <KLENSIN@INFOODS.UNU.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 08:49:47 -0500 (EST)
- To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>
- Cc: David_Goldsmith@taligent.com, ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM
I have not read the new draft yet. This is mostly a procedural comment. David, as we have discussed privately, the _experimental_ question of whether Unicode and some encoding for it are appropriate (unmodified and without further qualification/ profiling) for broad-based internet use is separable from the similar question about 10646. For Unicode, one of the important questions is whether it is comprehensive enough in terms of characters represented and distinctions made. For 10646, one opens up, as Ohta-san has pointed out, all of the problems of dealing with an extensible standard/family of standards and the special one of dealing with one of those when the extension model is not yet established (we at least know the extensibility parameters for 2022). Ohta-san, David is proposing an experiment right now, not a standards-track document. Experiments are much more the IETF way of doing things than arguments from logic and theory. There is no applicability statement proposed that says "use this"; there is no plan at the moment to push the thing onto the standards track. The _experiment_ will either succeed or fail, both in terms of who decides to use it and in terms of what problems they do (or don't) run into. Even if we wanted to, there is no mechanism for either of us to prevent him from proposing that experiment and carrying it out. >From the standpoint of [my understanding of] your position, the best thing to do would be to focus on getting his proposals to be as clear and precise as possible so that the results can be objectively analyzed. john --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Sunday, 27 March 1994 06:21:20 UTC