On 04/06/2001 19:35:33 "Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
[...]
> Well Misha, give what you have just said, why exactly is the UTF-8S proposal
> being forwarded to the Unicode Technical Committee? It seems that the UTC is
> already doing what is needed here to allow people to live with these
> (flawed) implementations. If Oracle or anyone else needs such a thing to be
> supported elsewhere then they will have to talk to the IETF, the Internet,
> the W3C, the WWW, XML, and HTML to see if a similar rule (allow it to be
> accepted, never emit) can be passed?
I think those advocating the creation of this beast have not made clear
whether:
a) it is to be safely locked up in some bomb-proof dungeon, for private
use, in which case no standardisation is needed,
b) it is to be allowed to roam freely in the countryside, in which case
a strategy for getting it past the guardians of the countryside
should be put forward.
Maybe the intention is to first get it past the UTC and then to go to
other standards bodies saying: "You should accept this as the UTC has
done so." I don't think this argument will get very far.
Misha
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT