See below. The fun hasn't stopped yet!
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
----- Original Message -----
From: "Masataka Ohta" <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: "Robert Elz" <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>; <ietf@ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>; <iab@isi.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:58 am
Subject: [idn] Re: I don't want to be facing 8-bit bugs in 2013
> Kre;
>
> > | IDNA does _not_ work, because Unicode does not work in
International
> > | context.
> >
> > This argument is bogus, and always has been. If (and where)
unicode
> > is defective, the right thing to do is to fix unicode.
>
> Unicode is not usable in international context.
>
> There is no unicode implementaion work in international context.
>
> Unicode is usable in some local context.
>
> There is some unicode implementaion work in local contexts.
>
> However, the context information must be supplied out of band.
>
> And, the out of band information is equivalent to "charset"
> information, regardless of whether you call it "charset" or
> not.
>
> > So, stop arguing against unicode (10646) - just fix any problems it
has.
>
> Fix is to supply context information out of band to specify which
> Unicode-based local character set to use.
>
> With MIME, it is doable by using different charset names for
> different local character set.
>
> See, for example, RFC1815.
>
> As for IDN, it can't just say "use charset of utf-7" or "use charset
> of utf-8".
>
> IDN can say "for Japanese, use charset of utf-7-japanese".
>
> Or, if you insist not to distinguish different local character sets by
> MIME charset names, IDN can say "use charset of utf-7, but, for
> Japanese, use Japan local version of utf-7" and somehow specify
> how a name is used for Japanese.
>
> Anyway, with the fix, there is no reason to prefer Unicode-based
> local character sets, which is not widely used today, than existing
> local character sets already used world wide.
>
> Masataka Ohta
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Mar 20 2002 - 12:39:49 EST