May be there is something wrong with me, but many of Masataka Ohta's
arguments do make sense to me.
First, I am not a character set expert and because of that some of
this discussion is going over my head. I expect that the same is true
of many others on these mainling lists ....
The Japanese (non latin) experience having gone beyond localization
and into globalization/internationalization may be of significant
value.
I want to keep an open mind to Masataka Ohta's comments/arguments.
On Thu, 17 Nov 1994 16:03:27 +0100,
austins(_at_)cdg(_dot_)chalmers(_dot_)se (Austin Shelton) said:
Austin> Dear Mr. Ohta,
Austin> It would seem that your comments regarding the Swedish initiative to
Austin> implement MIME as a method of dealing with the problems of multiple
Austin> character sets has occasioned debate. I would like to point out a few
Austin> things:
Austin> (1) Your arguments are absurdly out of touch with reality. No one can
at
Austin> this point in time seriously consider adoption of a single,
all-purpose
Austin> character set.
Why. He is saying there is one.
Masataka> ISO-2022-INT-* is the one.
Austin,
If you think that what he is saying is not true. Say why.
Masataka,
please tell us what ISO-2022-INT-* is all about ...
Both in theory and in practice.
Austin> (2) Even if such a thing was possible, it is questionable as to
whether it would
Austin> be desirable. Such an approach is essentially static; it leaves
little room
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who says so? Why should such an approach be "essentially static".
Austin> for change or expansion. Using MIME we can add new character sets
as
Austin> needed.
Masataka> No, we need additions of repertoire forever.
Clearly, Masataka is not approaching it as "essentially static".
It seems to be extesible ...
Austin> (3) I have heard many "perfect and final" soultions proposed during my
Austin> career. Nothing has ever come of these. I don't think anything
ever will.
Austin> Experience shows that dynamic standards which can respond to
changing
Austin> technology are generally most successful. This philosophy is
embodied in
Austin> MIME.
My understaning is that ISO-2022-INT-*/MIME positions are not
either/or but potentially complementary.
Austin> I would like to add that I consider your style appalling and
Austin> unprofessional. Your so-called "technical" observations are, to say
the
Austin> least, extremely questionable. I get the impression from your notes
that
Austin> you are not truly interested in the problems we are trying to solve
here
Austin> but rather in creating controversy and confusion.
Austin> I cannot imagine why you detest MIME so much but apparently you do.
This
Austin> opinion seems to be at the root of your vitrolic criticism. Let me
make it
Austin> simple for you:
I have seen no reason to conclude that he detest's MIME.
>> The discussion is wrongly comparing discussing 3 completely separate
>> issues (at least). That is worse that "apples and oranges", worse
>> even than "chevres et choux" (ie. goats and cabbages).
Masataka> So, I think that the issue is a little less worse to be "grapes,
Masataka> wine or brandy". I eat/drink all of them but prefer Chambertine
Masataka> and Bas Armagnac. Don't you?
Masataka> Masataka The Drunken Ohta
He seems to prefer something else in addition to MIME.
Austin> We are going to use MIME in Sweden and nothing you can
Austin> say or do will have the slightest effect on that decision.
Austin> If this unacceptable for you I suggest that you dry up and blow away.
Is that professional?
Austin> Regards/
I find this discussion most intersting and amusing :-).
Although I don't think that Masataka needs any encouragements,
I just wanted to throw in my two cents and keep an open mind.
...Mohsen.