- From: Matthew Dovey <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:54:35 -0000
- To: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>, <www-zig@w3.org>
> The difference is that those other strings aren't important. > They are icing, not cake. They can be dumbed down to 7-bit > ASCII with no loss of functionality. I think it a little arrogant for someone who can use his own native tongue when describing his implementation in 7-bit should make that claim. The fact you can't even get any currency symbols into 7bit ASCII apart from US $ has been a sore point for many years ;-) However, coming back to the issue in hand, as I see it, we have two choices: We do a proper sound engineering job on this issue. That will involve some kind of negotiation so wo'n't be quick job to implement, and I feel whilst we're doing it we should go back and re-engineer the whole requested record syntax/schema/elementSet/language/charset issue. Or We do a quick fix - in which case the option bit with the limited scope suggested by Ralph seems the best approach. Its quick to implement, it solves the immediate problem. It isn't perfect and there are inconsistencies as to what it does and doesn't apply to - but that's the downside of doing a quick fix. My feeling is we do the quick fix for now - but we start looking at a proper re-engineering job in the longer term (at this stage to discuss or decide whether this is a compSpec 2 or a version 4 thing just muddies the waters - we need to get the requirements done before we start looking at how to get it into the standard). Matthew
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 05:54:32 UTC