From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 14 2004 - 17:45:59 CST
At 10:21 AM 11/14/2004, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Throughout all of this, I had completely missed the fact that the Tech
>Note for CESU-8 had been upgraded to a Tech Report, two and a half years
>ago, in fact. Perhaps I was in denial. Anyway, that ... invalidates many
>of my comments...
>CESU-8 is the documentation of someone's internal, non-standard
>implementation of UTF-8. Of course, the "someone" is large and
>important and their implementation affects a lot of users. If nobody
>else is motivated by the presence of UTR #26 to adopt this non-standard
There are some UTF-8/UTF-16 interoperability aspects that are addressed
by CESU-8. These concerns are real, and affect multi-component architectures
that must interchange data across component boundaries. Therefore a standard
specification serves a useful purpose.
>What worries me is that there might be other people in the world like
Phillippe doesn't worry me ;-)
>While we're on the subject of UTNs, I think it's a shame that BOCU-1, a
>genuinely novel and potentially useful compression scheme that was
>invented from scratch, is only documented in a "no-endorsement" UTN,
>when a draft UTR-upgrade that adds a white-box algorithm was written
>almost a year ago but has not been approved. This places BOCU-1 *below*
>CESU-8 in the food chain, which seems badly wrong.
You realize that the choice of material for a UTN rests with the authors.
Occasionally that will mean that material that could be a formal
specification is placed into a UTN by an author uninterested in getting UTC
endorsement, or one that lacks the time to pursue such.
In the case of BOCU-1 it's the latter, as the UTC has welcomed the idea of
putting this on a standards track.
So, your remarks should be directed at the authors of the UTN, and/or the
owners of the relevant technology.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 14 2004 - 17:51:06 CST