- From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:30:24 -0400
- To: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>
- cc: "tom garland" <tom.garland@sun.com>, www-i18n-workshop@w3.org, brunner@nic-naa.net
Addison, I'm sure there is more than just a consistent universal namespace to chew on. That particular bone has been gnawed on by lots of people who may be more interested in universally true stuff than in locally true stuff. When I read your proposal, I didn't notice that the request/response and negocation semantics would fail if every property failed to have global scope. Back when I worked for Unix vendors (xpg4.2, I consider it "standard"), even the file system namespace for locales was vendor-specific. I would not however infer from a lack of uniformity, file system syntax, or the semantics of the (xpg3) locale, or for that matter, the object file formats of semantically indistinguishable, possibly even syntactially indistinguishable locales, that this is a defect. This brings back locale internals, stuff I forgot I knew, as practiced at HP and SMI. So, I don't think my definition of X needs to agree with yours, except where we agree we care, which in general is application specific, and a proper subset of a (xpg3) POSIX locale, possibly extended. Eric
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 13:36:35 UTC