Re: Using unicode or MBCS characters in forms

Thanks Erik for understanding that I am not slamming anyone.
Just frustrated with the noises I hear that sound like cop outs!

What I would like to see is a pledge by everyone, customers and
vendors, to take seriously the need for interworking tools that
regularly and easily exchange Application Information Objects via
Internets.

A major key to my use of "Internets" in this statement centers on the
fact that in any Internet, no one has unilateral change control over
everything, and everyone has unilateral change control over their own.

This means that explicit labeling is an absolute requirement, and that
"sniffing" for clues about typing is a Very Bad Idea (TM).

Now then, if no one will step up to the plate to get this ball
rolling, it ain't gonna roll.  My motive here is to push this
discussion toward finding ways to make the ball roll, in place of
lamenting about how hard it is to make it roll.

Cheers...\Stef


From Erik van der Poel's message Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:39:06 -0700:
}
}Well said, Stef. I agree with most, if not all, of what you said. The
}real problem is how to get there from here. We need to migrate to the
}Brave New World in small steps that do not upset the installed base.
}
}Some time ago, it was a bad idea to get servers to add the charset
}parameter, since many clients treated such content-type headers as
}"unknown" types, and offered to save to file instead of rendering. The
}situation may be better now that more people have started using
}Navigator 1.1 and above.
}
}Similarly, we need to see whether servers will be able to handle a
}charset parameter in POSTs. If many do not handle it well, client
}developers will feel pretty uncomfortable adding charset by default.
}
}People may say "just jump to the new world without taking these
}pathetically small migrationary steps", but as a vendor selling stuff to
}customers, I'm not sure that is the thing to do.
}
}
}Erik
}

Received on Friday, 21 June 1996 03:22:59 UTC