Re: "Open Interchange"

Gavin Nicol writes:
>
>I would say that the above is a fair definition of "open interchange",

So do I.

>though with the ability to *discover* what character has been sent,
>the latter part of the assertion is false. This is why I have been
>hoping to get an infrastructure in place for that exact purpose.
>
>(To those who are waiting in the wings: I will be starting a mailing list 
>soon for discussion of this issue).

What is a character?   Without seriously considering this extremely 
hard problem, an "infratstructure" for introducing more
characters will only make the problem worse. 

Some people want to introduce a character called Hashigo-Daga.  The JIS 
committee rejected it, saying that this is merely a variation of usual 
Taka(i).  (This is a debatable issue, but I agree with the committee.)
Clearly, if we continue to introduce more and more characters for 
Hashigo-Daga, etc., full text search will become impossible.

>>Questions:  Is XML really intended only to be used for "open interchange"
>>as so defined?  
>
>I do not think so, though obviously, the Internet is an important target.
>
>>Will the use of XML be prohibited when additional agreements are needed?
>
>No.

You are right.

>>How would this be enforced, and what gain would accrue from enforcing it?
>
>You cannot enforce this, so no benefit is gained.

Gaiji characters will cause problems if they are used without private agreements.  I would propose to introduce something like this:

	The private areas can not be used without some additional agreements 
	on their usage by the author and the recipients,
	especially when XML is used over the Internet.

Makoto
 
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
 
Tel: 044-812-7230   Fax: 044-812-7231
E-mail: murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 1997 04:29:51 UTC