Yes, it does make sense to pick the 'most common' interpretation of a particular label, in the absence of a platform tag. That is part of the work that George is doing.
Mark ————— Πόλλ’ ἠπίστατο ἔργα, κακῶς δ’ ἠπίστατο πάντα — Ὁμήρου Μαργίτῃ [For transliteration, see http://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/tr] http://www.macchiato.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yves Arrouye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Mark Davis (jtcsv)'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nick Ing-Simmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "SADAHIRO Tomoyuki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Unicode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 15:55 Subject: RE: ICU's uconv vs Linux iconv and UTF-8 > > It is definitely a problem to try to interpret what any given label is > > supposed to be. The problem is that MIME labels and others are > > ambiguous, and are interpreted different ways on different systems. > > Still, in the meantime it does make sense to have EUC-JP associated to the > most common interpretation of it, doesn't it? Just for the sake of user > satisfaction? > > I am curious: is there a "better name" for the EUC-JP that ICU is using, > that would make everybody understand which one it is? If so, we could have > EUC-JP for the one that the rest of the world wants. > > YA > >
