- From: Ian Ibbotson <ian.ibbotson@k-int.com>
- Date: 13 Mar 2002 10:46:44 +0000
- To: Pieter Van Lierop <pvanlierop@geac.fr>
- Cc: zig <www-zig@w3.org>
Well, I'd avoided commenting because this whole area seems so complicated and there already seem to be many alternatives... But... Adam from Index Data and I were lucky enough to spend some time working in thailand on cp876 (Thai) character set based systems last week and, in the end, I think we both thought that a simple sequence of proposed character set names, and a response containing the one to use might be by far the most simple and flexible approach (Given that in our local situation we had to negotiate to 8-bit cp874). I guess this is nice, because sending "UTF-8" as the only entry in a list and getting back "UTF-8" as a response is reasonably close to the init option bit? Ian. On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 10:28, Pieter Van Lierop wrote: > Please forgive my ignorance but what is ISO 2022 exactly? > > The choice in the character set negotiation is between: > ISO2022 > ISO10646 > Private > > ISO2022, as I understand it, is an encapsulation of all classic 7-bits and > 8-bits character sets. > How many applications use ISO2022? > How do I say I send Ascii, or Latin-1? > > Wouldn't it be better, instead of ISO 2022, to make a list (extendable) of > character sets used? We could give them OID's. > I think we need the following: > > ASCII > Extended ASCII > ANSI > ALA > Latin-1 > Extended-Latin > ... > > probably a few more > > > Pieter van Lierop > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : LeVan,Ralph [mailto:levan@oclc.org] > > Envoyé : mardi 12 mars 2002 20:59 > > À : zig > > Objet : RE: back to character encoding > > > > > > Yes! It should apply to the OctetString version of Term. > > (It does in my > > server.) > > > > Ralph > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:rden@loc.gov] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:56 AM > > > To: zig > > > Subject: Re: back to character encoding > > > > > > > > > Pieter Van Lierop wrote: > > > > > > > I agree. But I would suggest to explicitly include Search > > > Term when it is > > > > defined as OCTET STRING. > > > > > > I understand your concern, Pieter, but I don't see any easy > > > way to accomplish > > > this with the existing character set negotiation definition, > > > short of amending > > > it (again!). If there is popular support for doing this, > > > folks need to speak > > > up. > > > > > > --Ray > > > > > > > > > > -- Ian Ibbotson (ian.ibbotson@k-int.com) Knowledge Integration Ltd Sheffield Science & Technology Parks Cooper Buildings Arundel Street Sheffield S1 2NS http://www.k-int.com
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 05:47:16 UTC