Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "Re: charset iso-8859-8-i":I don't need to. You agree with it yourself. Let me try to rephrase in a simpler way. ISO-8859-8 mean visual Hebrew ONLY when used in a MIME context. With any other context, it does not relate to ordering at all, leading, as you suggested, to an assumption of "logical order".
Both the last sentences are not exactly accurate.
Care to back up this claim with a reference?
It is therefor, broadly, correct to say that ISO-8859-8 refers to visual ordering when in MIME context, and logical ordering otherwise.
True, but I don't see how an RFC titled "Handling of Bi-directional Texts in MIME" can contradict anything I said :-)As far as I know, ISO-8859-8-I does not exist outside the HTML/Mime world, and ISO-8859-8 does mean logical Hebrew there.
Iso-8859-8-i was defined as early as 1993 in RFC 1556.
Care to show an example of that? So long as all MIME clients treat ISO-8859-8 as "visual ordering", I don't see how anyone can bend the standard. Like I said above, as far as OS, file, and other (non-MIME) encoding goes, ISO-8859-8 is usually logical ordering anyways.I already mentioned that while this RFC is "de jure" law, the "de facto" law is that the old visual representation is all but obsolete, so people are thinking more and more that it's silly to tack on the extra "-i" for the only useful encoding. So they don't.
Shachar
-- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/
================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
