Re: Comments on <draft-ietf-acap-mlsf-00.txt>?

From: Pierre Lewis (
Date: Fri Jun 06 1997 - 09:54:00 EDT

In message "Re: Comments on <draft-ietf-acap-mlsf-00.txt>?",
'' writes:

> I'd like to briefly summarize some of the positions taken on various
> sides in this discussion.

Thanks, very useful (esp. for one who didn't have the time to read
all the posts carefully).

I haven't read the MLSF yet (will do this weekend), but I'm sure I
still won't agree with putting this tagging in UTF-8. UTF-8 is nothing
more than one of many possible transformation formats, and it must
always be possible to move between it and UCS-2 and other UTFs. Filters
surely will (and almost certainly already do) exist to transform
between these various CESs. What would they do with language tagging?

> My personal position on the above is that an alternative non-UCD (i.e.,
> standard code assignment) approach is preferred. Its only negatives are
> (a) opposition from (1) above and (b) the time required to make actual
> code assignments.

Sounds to me like the only possible approach, assuming language tagging
is needed at the plain-text level (I don't have the knowledge to comment
on that).


P.S. What happened to the "unicode plain-text file" thread? Seems it
died very suddenly (with no closure)! Maybe it was displaced by this
new thread :-).

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:34 EDT