JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
Amen. This is an architectural feature decided for political reasons
which does not scale.
Which means that, despite all the efforts wasted on it, we can't
have any satisfying solution. However, for some kind of shameless
people who, for example, say:
: A huge amount of engineering work has been done to make Unicode
: workable in IETF protocols and elsewhere. Does more work need
: to be done? Of course it does - these tasks are by their very
: nature pretty much unending.
it is a blessing rather than a curse, because they are assured not
to reach the final solution only to loss there work items. That's
the politics of so many useless IETF products.
I beg to differ on wording. Internationalization is an IETF/Unicode
word.
It is not. IETF/Unicode abuses the word.
The internationalization (RFC 3066bis) culture is unilateral.
Wrong. First, RFC 3066bis has nothing to do with the
internationalization. Second, it has nothing to do with
the culture.
It, of course, has nothing to do with engineering.
It is purely political.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf