- From: Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@dkuug.dk>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:06:43 +0200
- To: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>
- Cc: tamer@ca.ibm.com, ietf-charsets@iana.org, iana@iana.org, iana@isi.edu, Antoine Leca <Antoine.Leca@renault.fr>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
The idea was to document it for applications to be used at a platform but not on the wire. And this was deemed needed as IETF specifications are also about the things that happen with the protocols at the platforms. On the other hand, it was decided that only some selected charsets should be used for interchange, on the wire. Maybe we should add that as a property to each of the registrations, that is, "recommended for use on the wire". I believe some of these recommendations are already done in the rfcs specifying the protocols. Kind regards Keld On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 01:37:36PM -0700, Erik van der Poel wrote: > tamer@ca.ibm.com wrote: > > > > The only one that can be used in MIME, etc. is IBM850. All the others > > have an EBCDIC encoding and are not suitable for use "on the wire". > > What is the motivation for registering these charsets if they are not > suitable for use on the wire? Is it intended to update existing EBCDIC > registrations with new ones that have now included the euro character? > > I'm just concerned about adding things that don't really belong in the > registry. In general, the MIME working group has tried to keep the > number of charsets down to a minimum, in order to maintain a certain > level of interoperability. > > In the past, many charsets were added to the registry, even if they were > not being used on the wire, and many of them may never be used on the > wire. The question now is whether we should continue to add such unused > charsets to the registry. > > Erik
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 17:05:35 UTC