[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Character set registration

1995-12-17 17:45:39
On 12/17/95 at 5:57 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
>As long as the person registering can come up with
>a valid reason for an exception to be made an objector won't have a leg to
>stand on here.

This actually sounds fine to me since there is at least some slack in the word "valid." So long as someone is forced to come up with some sort of explanation, it will prevent at least "blind" registration.

>Note also the explicit provision for marking something as being
>of limited use. This is an "out" that basically allows for the registration of
>practically anything.

I have a recommendation for an additional line:

>Note that character sets registered for the second
>reason should be explicitly marked as being of limited or
>specialized use

"...and should only be used in Internet messages with prior bilateral agreement."

Or something to that effect. I think we all agree that character set proliferation is a bad thing. I'd like to be able to say to another vendor, "You *shouldn't* be sending that character set out to the Internet in general because it is only registered in the 'not-ready-for-prime-time' category."

I really don't want to prevent people from registering character sets as they wish for their own personal use. And I agree that it's really up to the IAB to come down with some guidelines about character sets in general. However, I think there is no harm in making the language somewhat strong.

>Not really. The intended use of the review process is to get accurate
>registrations in terms of content, labelling, and sometimes intent. This has
>been a real problem for us in the past, and in my opinion it has actually been
>a much more serious problem than the purely political issues we've spent so
>much time on that have led us to any sort of useful outcome. Perhaps by
>divorcing this process from the political side as much as possible we'll
>improve in other areas. I certainly hope so.

I think I understand what the "political issues" have been, but I'm not sure I understand what the problems with regard to "accurate registrations in terms of content, labelling, and sometimes intent" are. Could you please explain for the unwashed among us? If you think that this is getting a little off-topic and would be better taken off-line, feel free to send me comments privately.

Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated
Home: (217)337-1905 / Fax: (217)337-1980

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>