At 10:43 PM 11/30/94, Masanobu UMEDA wrote:
In my feeling, anti-ISO-2022-* people don't try to use the widely
spread mule to examine the feasibility of the methodology.
It was not feasability that was under discussion. It was whether or not it
is safe to dispense with character set labels, be they iso-8859-1 or
iso-2022-jp or whatever. Nathaniel's point was that, until everyone is
using the same character set (be it unicode or iso-2022 or some other
universal character set), it will be necessary to label the character set
that is being used.
By sending out ISO-2022 and having it come up gibberish on our screens,
you've proved that ISO-2022 is not universally used, which was most of
Nathaniel's point.
I'm not saying that 2022 isn't feasible (nor am I now saying that it is).
What I am saying is that, until some character set is used universally, it
will be necessary for utilities to have a way of discovering which
character set is being used in a particular message. That character set
may even be ISO-2022-JP; fine, no problem. So long as it's labelled.
If you don't have any experiences, I don't count you.
Please, let's not start the name-calling again.
--
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Incorporated. "Oog make mission statement."