ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

FW: "Unicode" vs "ISO 10646"

2005-10-27 10:35:27

Here's something to think about that came up during today's IESG evaluation
of draft-ietf-sieve-variables.  It might be worth talking about since the
doc needs some other edits before IESG approval.

-Scott-

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 7:32 AM
To: Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: 'IESG'
Subject: Re: "Unicode" vs "ISO 10646"

Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:59 AM
To: IESG
Subject: "Unicode" vs "ISO 10646"

While scanning drafts in Frankfurt airport, I noticed
that two of them (the iris and sieve drafts) refer in the
text to Unicode.

My understanding is that the IETF recommendation is to
use the ISO 10646 coded character set, and I thought there
were good reasons we specified that instead of Unicode.

What should we be looking for in RFCs?


Where is that recommendation?

RFC 2277 = BCP 18

which doesn't even mention Unicode. (Also see RFC 2130).

     Brian


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