Re: Charset policy - Post Munich

From: Misha Wolf (
Date: Mon Sep 01 1997 - 18:15:29 EDT

[I'm copying this mail to the unicode list. If any Unicoder responds,
please copy your response to (]

A couple of minor comments:

> (Note: ISO 10646 calls the UTF-8 CES a "Transfer Format" rather
> than a "character encoding scheme", but it fits the charset report
> definition of a character encoding scheme).

As I'm on the road (actually at the Eleventh International Unicode
Conference), I don't have access to the ISO 10646 amendments. I think
that ISO 10646 calls UTF-8 a "Transformation Format", not a "Transfer
Format". Can anyone check this? RFC 2130 contains many incorrect
definitions including those of ASCII (!) and of UTF; please let's not
add to them.

> Note also that a language is distinct from a POSIX locale; a POSIX
> locale identifies a set of cultural conventions, which may imply a
> language (the POSIX or "C" locale of course do not), while a
> language tag as described in RFC 1766 identifies only a language.

Would it be helpful to add quotes round the instance of POSIX inside the
brackets? The third line of the above para would become:

      language (the "POSIX" or "C" locale of course do not), while a

Misha Wolf Email: 85 Fleet Street
Standards Manager Voice: +44 171 542 6722 London EC4P 4AJ
Reuters Limited Fax : +44 171 542 8314 UK
Eleventh International Unicode Conference, Sep 2-5 1997,

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 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:36 EDT