ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

ISO-2022 & RFC-XXXX

1991-10-22 05:53:12
  While I think that in principle ISO 2022 should be permitted because
it so clearly fits the needs of Japanese (language) users, I do agree
with those who say that RFC-XXXX needs a clearer definition of the
scope of customary usage, which IR sets are used, and other such
details.

  I do not have sufficient experience with actual Japanese ISO-2022
usage to write such a document myself.  I am sure that the Japanese
ISO-2022 usage is clear within that locale, but I am equally sure that
it is not sufficiently clear within other parts of the world such as
North America or Europe.  It is one of my goals that whatever
mechanisms do get adopted for inclusion within RFC-XXXX be specified
clearly enough that they will be widely implemented correctly.  I
don't presently have ISO-2022 capability in mail but do occasionally
exchange mail with folks there.  It would be useful for me to be able
to implement that portion of RFC-XXXX myself so I can have that
capability.  Without further explanation text from someone familiar
with the Japanese usage, I am not able to do so in an interoperable
manner.

  If someone who is familiar with the Japanese usage would write such
a document either as a stand-alone or for inclusion in RFC-XXXX, I
would feel a lot more comfortable with the inclusion of ISO-2022 and
with removing the "not recommended" label currently attached to it.

  In general, I think that the only "recommended" encoding or content
format (pick your favourite jargon words here :-) should be the ISO
10646 standard when it comes out.  It is difficult to predict when the
DIS will become an IS and I don't think we can afford to wait for that
event, but we should clearly indicate in "rationale" text that the
intent of this working group is that IS 10646 is the officially
recommended format once it is approved by ISO.  

  In order to prevent any uncertainty about this intent in potential
readers of RFC-XXXX, and to avoid needless linguistic bias towards the
non-alphabetic languages, we should avoid formally "recommending" ANY
other format in the RFC text.  This explicitly means that I think that
"mnemonic" should be clearly permitted but should not be specified as
the officially "recommended" format for either headers or body in the
RFC.

Regards,

  Ran
  atkinson(_at_)itd(_dot_)nrl(_dot_)navy(_dot_)mil


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>