- From: Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 12:41:16 -0400
- To: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@INNOSOFT.COM>
- Cc: ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM
À 12:42 31/08/97 -0700, Ned Freed a écrit : >(1) The discussion of the Hangul mess and versioning is far too > wishy-washy. What needs to be said is that the charset label "UTF-8" is > aligned with the character assignments in Unicode 2.0 or later and that > it is NOT aligned with the assignments in Unicode 1.0 or 1.1, in > particular the old Hangul range. Agreed, it needs to be much more explicit. What about the following changes in section 5 : 1st paragraph: This memo is meant to serve as the basis for registration of a MIME character set parameter (charset) [MIME]. The proposed charset parameter value is "UTF-8". This string would label media types containing text consisting of characters from the repertoire of ISO/IEC 10646 including all amendments at least up to amendment 5 (Korean block), encoded to a sequence of octets using the encoding scheme outlined above. UTF-8 is suitable for use in MIME content types under the "text" top-level type. BTW, shouldn't the reference to [MIME] above be changed to refer to draft-freed-charset-reg-02.txt ? Last paragraph, now split in two: In practice, then, a version-independent label is warranted, provided the label is understood to refer to all versions after Amendment 5, and provided no incompatible changes actually occur. Should incompatible changes occur in a later version of ISO 10646, the MIME charset label defined here will stay aligned with the previous version until and unless the IETF specifically decides otherwise. Should the need ever arise to distinguish data containing Hangul encoded according to Unicode 1.1, then a version-dependent label, for that version only, should be registered (a suggestion would be "UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8"), in order to retain the advantages of a version-independent label for 2.0 and later versions. Such a version-dependent label could even be registered before actual need arises, pre-emptively, but it is important to strongly recommend against creating any new Hangul-containing data without taking Amendment 5 of ISO 10646 into account. Note that this last sentence is actually a suggestion that should perhaps be decided at once. Do we want to pre-emptively register "UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8" or some such? If so, let's have affirmative language; if not, let's remove that last sentence. > I therefore think that > this specification needs to say that it aligns automatically with > all future versions of Unicode that don't make incompatible changes, but > the minute one is made it stays aligned with the old version until and > unless the IETF specifically decides otherwise. I think the new language above addresses that. How is that? Regards, -- François Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com> Alis Technologies inc., Montréal Tél : +1 (514) 747-2547 Fax : +1 (514) 747-2561 --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 1997 13:04:14 UTC