RE: back to character encoding

Fine by me.  I've been using the utf-8 negotiation for some time now and am
happy with it.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 12:35 PM
> To: zig
> Subject: back to character encoding
> 
> 
> Back to character encoding........
> 
> (I had some offlist discussions some of which I
> didn't realize were offlist until now; I see what
> Joe was complaining about.  In addition, different
> messages have come from different mailing accounts
> of mine. I'm not sure which of what follows I've
> said to the list and what privately. Hopefully
> this message will re-synch.)
> 
> I propose that we resolve the immediate character
> encoding issue as follows:
> 
> Use the existing character set negotiation
> definition,
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency/defns/charneg-3.html,
> 
> to negotiate utf-8 for the search term.
> 
> (i.e. for name strings, which include the search
> term).
> 
> See the (approved) ZIG Commentary "Negotiating
> Unicode and UTF-8"
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency/wisdom/unicode.html
> 
> "term" is a name string, when characterString is
> the CHOICE. See:
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency/defns/namestr.html
> 
> I don't favor an option bit anymore. I suggested
> it because I thought it was going to solve much
> more of the problem. We're not going to resolve
> what an "option bit" would apply to with respect
> to records; it seems we will only agree that it
> applies to the term. There isn't any point to
> defining an option bit simply for the search term.
> It's a heavy-handed approach, and un-necessary,
> since character set negotiation will solve the
> encoding problem for search terms, which is the
> immediate problem. I don't propose defining an
> attribute either (which was another suggestion)
> since all we're interested in is utf-8.
> 
> If people want to solve the encoding problem for
> records, we can continue that discussion,
> independently.  But I'm not going to revisit it
> unless someone claims it as a requirement.
> 
> --Ray
>

Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 14:03:15 UTC