In <200205061557(_dot_)g46FvTg28078(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
sure, but the evidence also shows that new formats and protocols introduce
interoperability problems and disruption.
Indeed. Each time we introduce a new Codec, we introduce new
interoperability problems and disruption (usually because it gets
implemented wrong, or not at all). Looks like IDNA will gives us yet
another Codec, and we also need one for the local-part (though hopefully
we can reuse an existing one there).
But where will this end? What more Codecs will be needed in future?
Surely, the lesson to be learned is that Codecs are more trouble than they
are worth, and that sooner or later we need to have a Final Solution to
the problem. UTF-8 is such a Final Solution. It may not solve the
immediate problem (which is that we have to deal with IDNA NOW), but it
will sure pay off in the long term.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5