Let's get this discussion back to where useful information is exchanged and
participants and observers learn something from the exchange of facts.
Maybe someone else can summarize the state of the discussion for all of
us, so we can see what issues are still open, and for which the discussion
as yielded some answers.
Thanks,
A.
PS: Since I find it highly unlikely that Mark Davis (who is the editor
of 10646) would
want to go back to DIS-1, perhaps the issue is one of
confusion? The standard
is called ISO/IEC 10646-1, where -1 stands for part one, and
that, indeed is
the part of 10646 that contains the Base Multilingual Plane and
should be
used as the charset. (There are no other parts of 10646
published at this time).
----------
| From: Masataka Ohta
<netmail!mohta(_at_)necom830(_dot_)cc(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp>
| To: Glenn Adams <glenn(_at_)metis(_dot_)com>
| Cc: <ietf-822(_at_)dimacs(_dot_)rutgers(_dot_)edu>;
<unicored(_at_)Unicode(_dot_)ORG>
| Subject: Re: Response
| Date: Tuesday, January 25, 1994 1:09PM
|
| Received: by netmail using toxenix
| netmail!mohta(_at_)necom830(_dot_)cc(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp Mon, 24
Jan 94 20:29:33
| PST
| Received: from UNICODE.ORG by netmail.microsoft.com with SMTP (5.65/25-eef)
| id AA01356; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:28:48 -0800
| Received: from necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp by Unicode.ORG (NX5.67c/NX3.0M)
| id AA24750; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:01:30 -0800
| Received: by necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (5.65+/necom-mx-rg);
| Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:09:53 +0859
| Return-Path: <mohta(_at_)necom830(_dot_)cc(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp>
| Message-Id:
<9401250410(_dot_)AA15763(_at_)necom830(_dot_)cc(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp>
| In-Reply-To:
<9401241637(_dot_)AA06999(_at_)trubetzkoy(_dot_)metis(_dot_)com>; from
| "Glenn Adams" at Jan 24, 94 11:37 am
| X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
|
| > From: Masataka Ohta
<mohta(_at_)necom830(_dot_)cc(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp>
| > Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:42:20 JST
| >
| > Have we agreed that ISO 10646 needs some profiling to be a MIME charset?
| >
| > No, it does not need profiling to be used by MIME. If it does, then
| > ASCII does too.
|
| I'm afraid that you don't understand the fact that *no* character
| set specifies the precise details of the graphical expression of the
| text.
|
| Anyway, you should read RFC 1555.
|
| > 10646 here means DIS 10646-1.0 which is much better than the current IS.
| >
| > Excuse me, but what purpose does it serve to keep recalling DIS 1?
|
| Ask Mark Davis who said that the intention of MIME was to identify
| DIS 1 as the charset.
|
| > It is dead and buried.
|
| So bury Mark's longing with it.
|
| > > (Unicode provides an detailed algorithm for determining presentation
| > > order of 10646 characters within a line or paragraph--even in the
| > > absence of presentation format codes.
| >
| > I have never seen any detailed algorithm in Uncode books.
| > Where is it described?
| >
| > Well, it may not be your idea of "detailed", but Appendix A in volume I,
| > along with corrections in Appendix D of volume II and erratta in TR #4
| > define an algorithm, which, if you possess only an average amount of
| > cleverness, will allow you to implement the Unicode BIDI algorithm in
| > real code without any problems. Of course, it would help if you knew
| > something about Arabic or Hebrew too; so perhaps it will be a bit more
| > difficult for you.
|
| Do you want to convince me that some necessary profiling information
| for 10646 is provided by Unicode?
|
| As I already know that I can't display Japanese text with UNICODE without
| some profiling information, you don't have to do so.
|
| Masataka Ohta
|
|