Re: Unicodeless WAP?

From: mg (
Date: Tue Jan 18 2000 - 08:06:56 EST

Point (1) is actually more about digests; please do not respond to that, but
just skip to (2) for WAP.

I am very sorry I raised this subject last week, especially as I have since
received so much mail that there is no chance of my reading much of it:-)
Thing is, I run so many lists (far more than our esteeemed Sarasvati, to whom
I intended no reproach, and who runs a far neater shop than many another list
administrator), but I couldn't use his system, because, apart from lacking
normal list functions, it clearly costs so much of his time just to keep it
running. My system requires far less admin work -- for example, I can leave
all our lists idling in MAIL mode (the LISTSERV default, which is just the
same as UNICODE's current instant mail delivery service), unless a user opts
for DIGEST mode as his personal option (zero work for the list owner in that,
as I don't even need to know who is receiving individual MAIL msgs, who
DIGESTs). Some of my lists have heavy regular traffic, or periodically heavy
traffic, or subscribers who are away from home a lot. Say some lists may be
running (like this list today) at circa 100 msgs in 24 hrs. If one of my
subscribers goes away for a week, he/she can safely do so with an easy mind,
without having to unsubscribe, by choosing the DIGEST option, which fixes it
so he/she only has 7 mail units per list to download on returning home
(instead of 700 per list). That is all I have to say on this subject.

Urgent question: is it true that WAP systems are shaping up to ignore the
Unicode Standard? If so, why, and what is being done about that? Since the
future seems to belong to WAP, does that mean UCS is becoming redundant?
Which ISO Standards form the basis of WAP? These questions I'd like to see
discussed by experts on this list, unless WAP has already chosen.

With best wishes,

Arsa Otto Stolz:

> Am 2000-01-14 um 10:28:46 -0800 (PST) hat Sarasvati geschrieben:
> > As always, I shall continue to be your non-stop source for real-time
> > indigestible updates 31,536,000 seconds per year (or 31,622,400 in
> > leap years).
> Does this imply that our esteemed Sarasvati is twiddling her thumbs
> during the one or two leap-seconds per year (occurring on 2000-06-30T23:60
> and 2000-12-31T23:60)? I am bitterly disappointed by this gaping lack of
> enthusiasm!
> > Even though I have, in those years, wasted oodles of free cycles, [...]
> Roughly, 6 thumb-cycles per year, I suppose.
> Best wishes,
> Otto Stolz

Marion Gunn
Everson Gunn Teoranta

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT