- From: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@INNOSOFT.COM>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 15:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@INNOSOFT.COM>
- Cc: ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM
> Registering UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8 is much better as it doesn't cause > compatibility problems with MIME readers. The long ugly name is also good > since we *really* want to discourage its use. > I don't like "charset-edition" as defined in RFC 1922. In order for it to > function interoperably with changing character sets, it would require a > reset of MIME to proposed standard so that all MIME MUAs could be required > to support it. I think that's a horrible idea. Specifically, MIME says that a charset defines a mapping from octets to characters. The minute you use something like charset-edition to distinguish between two versions of Unicode with different code points it becomes part of what's necessary to determine the right octet to character mapping, since without it a given octet could map to two or more characters. Having to change a core piece of MIME like this would necessarily require a reset to proposed. > Now a "charset-subset" parameter would be quite useful down the road as > characters are added. Clients have the problem that the installed fonts > may not have all the characters in the latest 10646/Unicode. A > "charset-subset" advisory parameter (e.g., "amend5" subset only uses the > subset of 10646 range defined in 10646 + amendments 1-5) could be useful. > But it wouldn't be necessary for interoperability. Right, because no ambiguities develop in the mapping that charset defines. Ned --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Monday, 8 September 1997 15:24:21 UTC