I believe we must admit is US-centric, simply because the US
took the lead in this development and USASCII is what was there to be used
when 822 was written.
In the history of 822, there was no US-ASCII. There was NET-ASCII
which interpretation has been constant internationaly.
We make allowances for other deviations from standards, and it seems to
me that we should be able to be flexible enough to recognize that practice
in certain parts of the world defaults for good reason to languages,
character-sets, and encodings which deviate from strict 822.
Even US-ASCII is not strict, how can you say "strict 822"?
As I believe
we're all agreed, MIME helps respolve that dilema and therefore represents
progress.
MIME charset helps to resolve non (or rarely) existent dilemma of
multiple localizations.
Our differences are in the non-MIME situation,
I don't think MIME spec should restrict non-MIEM situatin so
wrong way.
and I hope we can
acknowledge that we're incompatible in that situation and move on to become
compatible through MIME and whatever we can all develop together in the
future that wil be better than MIME.
I'm afraid you don't understand what Internationalization means.
Resolving multiple localizations is known to be the dead end.
Masataka Ohta