- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:52:17 +0200
- To: Markus Kuhn <Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk>, IANA <iana@icann.org>
- Cc: ietf-charsets@iana.org
don't register any aliases. You need to allocate a MIBEnum, though. --On 24. august 2001 11:31 +0100 Markus Kuhn <Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > "IANA" wrote on 2001-08-23 23:25 UTC: >> I'm in the process of registering this. >> Is there an Alias for this new Character Set? > > I don't see a need for any aliases, but I don't object too strongly if > you really want to add any for consistency with the registration of the > other ISO 8859 parts. The other ISO 8859 parts have various amounts of > aliases registered (mostly for no good reason I suspect), and the > equivalents for ISO-8859-16 would probably be some or all of: > > Alias: iso-ir-226 > Alias: ISO_8859-16:2001 > Alias: ISO_8859-16 > Alias: latin10 > Alias: l10 > > In general, I believe that aliases are an evil thing and the fewer there > are the better. Aliases should in my opinion only be used to handle > inconsistent historic practice, but they should not be introduced for > new charsets. The whole point of a registry is to have *single* exact > unique names for objects and conventions after all. The aliases were ill > conceived from the beginning. For instance: The existing ISO-IR-xxx > aliases are technically wrong, because the ISO IR number refers only to > the upper half (G1) of the 8-bit character set, not to the full charset. > Some aliases that contain the year of publication are by now obsolete, > because ISO has published the second edition of the older ISO 8859 > parts. These are just some of the aspects why I think the aliases were a > bad idea to start with. > > Also note that the capitalization in the registry is inconsistent. It > says "iso-8859-14" but "ISO-8859-15". The entire thing probably deserves > a cleanup. > > Markus > > -- > Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK > Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/> > >
Received on Friday, 24 August 2001 06:54:06 UTC