- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@stonehand.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 23:09:58 +0100
- To: Multiple recipients of list <www-html@www0.cern.ch>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 20:18:56 +0100 From: goer@mithra-orinst.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) The fallacy I often hear uttered is that if we can stuff Unicode into the MIME header as the charset, then we can avoid the problem of having to define a CHARSET tag (since Unicode encompasses most national char- acters). But this way of thinking is WRONG. Unicode doesn't provide a mechanism for varying sort order and other things that vary accord- ing to locale and language. To do this, THE UNICODE STANDARD ITSELF SAYS THAT ADDITIONAL TAGS ARE NECESSARY for this sort of thing. The Unicode standard says such information is necessary if one wishes to perform in a plain-text encoding environment the following: (1) culturally correct sorting and (2) high-quality typographic formatting Show me where in HTML or in HTML applications that either of these requirements exist and I will agree with you that a language tag is needed; however, I think that you are going to have a difficult time showing where these are actually required, in which case your argument (and others of the same ilk) is simply a red herring. Regards, Glenn Adams
Received on Thursday, 2 February 1995 14:14:11 UTC