At 00:16 01/05/24 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > I don't have a whole lot of 3Mb/sec Type I Ethernet lying about these
> > days (see above).
>
>perhaps not. but the folks I know where were using IP over 3Mb/sec
>Ethernet are still using IP. IPv4 is starting to look obsolete due
>to a shortage of addresses, but I don't know anyone who thinks it's
>going to be discarded anytime soon.
Yes. But if that example applies to anything, it applies with
IP4 <=> ACE, IP6 <=> UTF-8, i.e. once we have ACE, we will have
big problems to get to UTF-8.
> > Isn't the line of march of uniqueness and consistency and so forth
> predicated
> > upon the inexistence of ... "island(s)", and the non-deployment of utf8?
>
>it's predicated on the non-deployment of utf-8 *in Internet applications*
>*at the time the IDN solution is deployed*.
utf-8 is well supported by the recent generations of browsers.
The situation is similar for e-mail, with some exceptions.
Speaking about 'non-deployment of utf-8 in Internet applications'
is just spreading bad rumors. If a bit more people had had the
guts to go for utf-8 a few months ago, we would already have quite
some things running, end-to-end.
>it is currently the case
>that few Internet applications support utf-8, and this isn't likely to
>change in the near future.
Can you please help me understand your facts by telling me how you
count?
>if you want to wait until everything else is using utf-8 before deploying
>IDNs that use utf-8, feel free. I suspect that most of us don't want
>to wait that long. I also suspect that the fastest way to get to having
>applications use utf-8 natively (if that's even worth the trouble)
>is to use ACE IDNs in the near term.
I think this is very seriously wrong. For a very large number of applications,
the only thing you have to do to work with utf-8 is make sure they are
8-bit compatible. In many cases, that's already the case. Even for something
as old as sendmail, an easy hack to achieve this has been described on this
list.
Regards, Martin.
