My other e-mail was a real "moji-baka", I'd say. That would be a good term, $BJ8;zGO</(B.
The University of Connecticut is, surprisingly, a mojibaka. And they have two of what look like Chinese newspapers. (I say Chinese because no kana.)
Onna is a *bit* of a mojibaka. I can recieve OK but not send. That makes it a semi-mojibaka.
Is mojibaka a real word?
$B!!!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
$B!!;d$O$m$3$($s$i$+$Y$5!#(B
Riddle of the week:
What song is 35971040100?
That is not a catalog number.
Hint: the chorus is 3597104042
--- Original Message ---
$B:9=P?M(B: Tex Texin <texin@progress.com>;
$B08@h(B: unicode@unicode.org;
Cc:
$BF|;~(B: 01/07/12 15:51
$B7oL>(B: Re: Is there Unicode mail out there?
>(I didnt read all the thread so maybe I missed a step).
>
>So the proposal is that minimizing the charset is a good thing?
>
>This means that you and I start out in a conversation about a
>product I am trying to sell you, it happens to be all in ascii
>and we exchange several mails successfully. Then I quote you
>a price in Euros and my 1252 message gets corrupted by your
>reader which can handle either only 8859-1 or ASCII, and
>you miss the fact that the Euro is corrupted and think we
>are talking dollars or some other currency.
>
>Although I understand why you would want a minimal charset in order
>to not needlessly prevent communications, the implication of
>reliability and trust that is built by having some success is
>a problem. You think you are communicating successfully but when it
>is critical it may not...
>
>Perhaps if a harder line was taken when characters
>are used that cannot be converted, this would make more sense.
>(ie give a very clear recognizable indication of corruption or
>conversion failures)
>
>tex
>
>
>
>DougEwell2@cs.com wrote:
>>
>> In a message dated 2001-07-11 15:03:27 Pacific Daylight Time,
>> jshin@mailaps.org writes:
>>
>> > One exception to this should be US-ASCII because not only the repertoire
>> > of US-ASCII is a subset of the repertoire of UTF-8 but also the
>> > representation of all characters in US-ASCII is identical in UTF-8.
>> > A smart mail client would notice that all characters
>> > are in US-ASCII repertoire and label outgoing messages as in
>> > US-ASCII EVEN if it's configured to label outgoing messages
>> > in UTF-8
>> [...]
>>
>> I thought this might even be enshrined in an RFC. It certainly makes sense.
>> If you are using a mailer that sends CP1252 down the wire (not that this is a
>> good idea, but some mailers do this), the mailer should examine the message
>> and if it only contains US-ASCII characters, the message should be tagged as
>> US-ASCII. Otherwise, if it only contains ISO 8859-1, it should be tagged as
>> ISO 8859-1. Only if it actually contains CP1252 characters, like smart
>> quotes or long dashes, should it be tagged as CP1252. As Jungshik observed,
>> the same goes for UTF-8.
>>
>> -Doug Ewell
>> Fullerton, California
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Tex Texin Director, International Business
>mailto:Texin@Progress.com +1-781-280-4271
>Fax:+1-781-280-4655
>the Progress Company 14 Oak Park, Bedford, MA 01730
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Jul 12 2001 - 14:15:52 EDT