In <8fQaxF20M2YtQ7N7YI(_at_)thumper(_dot_)bellcore(_dot_)com>, you wrote:
I'm afraid that the above text is only an improvement if the
reader was also at the Santa Fe meeting (which I was not), or
otherwise knows as much as the IETF does about this squirrely little issue.
Sigh. that's probably true. However, as the person who is currently
the keeper of the document, I need SOME kind of prose here.
I wish I had been able to provide some, but I still do not
understand the meaning or implications of or the rationale behind
those three/four restrictions.
I'm not
really very excited about this issue, because I feel like even I can't
define character sets, "I know them when I see them." However, if
anyone can come up with a better definition of a character set that
doesn't raise the hackles of other folks on this list...
I'm not as excited about it as I probably sound, but my worry is
that even though I think I know a character set when I see one,
something I think is a good candidate character set might be
thought otherwise (for one of these mystery reasons), and I've
already seen proposals of character sets (i.e. Unicode *plus* the
UTF-2 encoding) which don't seem like character sets to me.
I'll take a look at the draft you just released before I say more.