>From: Christian Huitema
<Christian(_dot_)Huitema(_at_)fr(_dot_)inria(_dot_)sophia>
>Subject: Re: DirectoryString character set
>Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 11:25:28 +0100
>If we pick a new syntax, we must be absolutely sure to rule out any needs
for
>translation, either by restricting the character set to ASCII (as in
RFC-821)
>or by allowing an explicit indication of the native character set + carrying
>certificates and documents in the native format.
T.61 is a recommendation, not a standard, as well you know. Neither is it
limited to teletex applications.
The Japanese Industrial Standard which utilizes the definitions of T.61
(JIS C 6226-1983) for use in information exchange applications standardizes
a character set for use by a suite of terminals and emulators which are in
large-scale use in the Internet.
the Chinese ideaogram terminal optional graphic character repertoire
(GB 2312-80 set no. 58 in ISO register), again standardized for information
interchange purposes, also exists.
as does the Greek..
(not sure whether its the pre damn-british-19C-propoganda Hellenic version, or
the
old Greek/Russian form though... to quote another list moaning
about cultural imperialism issues in the Internet... ;-))
Why shouldn't a person's name be rendered as they know it?
The rules for canonicalizing T.61 are pretty close to right; only minor
defects were found by the WIDE PEM.