Unicode is so flawed that 7 or 8 bit encoding is not an issue
James; Trying to reply your mail, my mailer says: [Charset Windows-1252 unsupported, skipping...] so, could you learn not to Microsoft centric and to use proper charset for the International discussion of IETF? > While the discussion of the use of various character set is interesting > topic, one which is also of interest to IDN WG, such prolonged discussion > are better carried out in a forum which is dedicated to this, such as > [EMAIL PROTECTED], a list which is formed to talk about the > generic problem of I18N and L10N in IETF, and not IDN. I believe IDN, or bogosity of it, worthes attracting generic attention of IETF. > Please bring it over to the other list and when/if there is a conclusion, > please keep the IDN informed. As you could have seen, on IETF mailing list, Harald and I have, at least, agreed that, if you use unicode based encoding, local context (or locale) must be carried out of band I think Harald's language tag is highly semantical and is not useful for purely lexical (not even syntactic) issues such as charset disambiguation or space elimination for format=flowed. For example, the follwing Japanese text in Romaji script: IDN tte zenzen dame follows, as you can easily guess, usual folding rules for Latin-based scripts. But, anyway, the discussion so far in IETF list is enough to deny IDN. I'm happy to discontinue the thread, then. Masataka Ohta PS I have found a theory to deny PKI and to explain why public key cryptograpy is not so polular dispite the efforts of ISO, which will destory entire business of a company or companies owing several important TLDs. So, don't bother to say that there are so many so-called-international- but-actuallly-local domain names registered.
Re: Unicode is so flawed that 7 or 8 bit encoding is not an issue
James; > > As you could have seen, on IETF mailing list, Harald and I have, at > > least, agreed that, if you use unicode based encoding, local context > > (or locale) must be carried out of band > > Few will disagree (including me) that using Unicode to do localization is > almost impossible without locale context. Huh? No one said such a thing. What is agreed is that, to use unicode, it must be supplied out of band local context. So, could you explain how the context is supplied with current IDN spec? > But I am touching on a sensitive topic about what you considered as I18N & > L10N and what the rest of the world thinks. Totally irrelevant. > > But, anyway, the discussion so far in IETF list is enough to deny IDN. > > I am not aware there was a IETF wide last call on IDN yet. To deny IDN, IESG can simply say "IDN is disbanded". There is no last call necessaruy. > > I have found a theory to deny PKI and to explain why public key > > cryptograpy is not so polular dispite the efforts of ISO, which will > > destory entire business of a company or companies owing several > > important TLDs. > > Very interesting. Could you share the theory, or privately if you prefer? I will post it later if I have time. Masataka Ohta
Re: Unicode is so flawed that 7 or 8 bit encoding is not an issue
> > Few will disagree (including me) that using Unicode to do localization is > > almost impossible without locale context. > > Huh? No one said such a thing. > > What is agreed is that, to use unicode, it must be supplied out of > band local context. In that case, I disagree with "to use unicode, it must be supplied out of band local context". You only need out of band local context to use Unicode if you are doing localization. > So, could you explain how the context is supplied with current IDN spec? Internationalization as defined in POSIX, means making software location neutral. Making a program specific to any particular language or culture or codeset is known as localization. I in IDN is Internationalization. > > I am not aware there was a IETF wide last call on IDN yet. > > To deny IDN, IESG can simply say "IDN is disbanded". There is no last > call necessaruy. Ah of course IESG can. But sorry, you dont represent IESG. > > > I have found a theory to deny PKI and to explain why public key > > > cryptograpy is not so polular dispite the efforts of ISO, which will > > > destory entire business of a company or companies owing several > > > important TLDs. > > > > Very interesting. Could you share the theory, or privately if you prefer? > > I will post it later if I have time. Please do. Thanks. -James Seng
Re: Unicode is so flawed that 7 or 8 bit encoding is not an issue
[Note: IDN WG list removed] > As you could have seen, on IETF mailing list, Harald and I have, at > least, agreed that, if you use unicode based encoding, local context > (or locale) must be carried out of band Few will disagree (including me) that using Unicode to do localization is almost impossible without locale context. But I am touching on a sensitive topic about what you considered as I18N & L10N and what the rest of the world thinks. > But, anyway, the discussion so far in IETF list is enough to deny IDN. I am not aware there was a IETF wide last call on IDN yet. > I have found a theory to deny PKI and to explain why public key > cryptograpy is not so polular dispite the efforts of ISO, which will > destory entire business of a company or companies owing several > important TLDs. Very interesting. Could you share the theory, or privately if you prefer? ps: btw, what effort of ISO are you referring? > So, don't bother to say that there are so many so-called-international- > but-actuallly-local domain names registered. Huh? Since when this was ever a factor in IETF consideration? -James Seng
Re: Unicode is so flawed that 7 or 8 bit encoding is not an issue
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 16:27:23 +0859, Masataka Ohta said: > Trying to reply your mail, my mailer says: > > [Charset Windows-1252 unsupported, skipping...] > > so, could you learn not to Microsoft centric and to use proper charset > for the International discussion of IETF? On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 16:47:58 +0859, Masataka Ohta said: > As my mailer says; > >[Charset utf-8 unsupported, skipping...] > > you should learn that Unicode is not usable in international context > of IETF. However, from http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets Name: windows-1252 MIBenum: 2252 Source: Microsoft (see ../character-set-info/windows-1252) [Wendt] Alias: None Name: UTF-8[RFC2279] MIBenum: 106 Source: RFC 2279 Alias: None Odd.. They're properly tagged and registered charsets. They're as legal as iso-8859-1 and us-ascii. Given that 'windows-1252' is probably a supported character set on more systems than anything *you* are likely to propose (given that I expect you won't propose Unicode or UTF-8 based solutions), I would be *very* careful in equating "it isn't supported on my MUA" to "is not usable in international context". That's a very steep and slippery slope that you probably do not want to be standing near -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg07992/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
