On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, John Gardiner Myers wrote:
> > It will be very helpful to have different tags for the character set itself
> > and the transformation format. Otherwise you end up in a product
> > (ISO-10646 version) * (transformation-format) of different character sets
> > to be registered -- clearly an uneconomical approach.
> MIME quite deliberately ignored the concept of a "coded character set"
> absent a "character encoding scheme" as not being useful for
Yes indeed. If you look at the actually existing combinations of
"coded character set" and "character encoding scheme", you will
see that it is a rather sparsely populated matrix, with lots of
special cases. Therefore, it is much better to identify the
individual combinations than each of the two concepts.
> Current thinking is that labeling the ISO 10646 version is harmful.
> Including it greatly increases the chance that something will be
> unreadable because the reader does not recognize the label. If Unicode
> and ISO 10646 do their jobs properly, then the version information is
> not useful.
Agreed. Unicode/ISO 10646 once made a big mistake, when they relocated
Korean Hangul Syllables. That's why it can make sense, in very rare
occasions, to have something like Unicode-1-1-UTF-7 or so. UTF-7 and
UTF-8 should always refer to the laters version, and because a lot
of people have learned a lot from the Korean mess (as I call it),
and Unicode 2.0/ISO 10646 including Amendment 5 is really now in wide
use, there will only be additions, and no changes, in future versions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:36 EDT