> Keld wrote on 2001-05-15 21:46 UTC:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:21:02PM +0100, Markus Kuhn wrote:
> > > We could put together a proper list (in the format required by ISO 2375)
> > > and then ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] to register them as a "coding
> > > system different from that of ISO 2022, with standard return".
> > >
> > > We'd just need a sponsoring national standards body sponsoring the
> > > proposal. Keld?
> >
> > We have talked about it before, in SC2/WG3. And decided to do it.
>
> Excellent! So let's actually do it! Should have already happened a long
> time ago. What is a character set registry worth with many of the most
> widely used ones missing.
>
> > I would be glad to take on the formal things
> > to initiate it. There may be some problems with ownership of
> > the codepages, however.
>
> What problems? Real or imaginary?
>
Not to be a stick-in-the-mud but... Private character sets that do not
conform to the minimum international standards of structure (ISO 4873 and
ISO 2022) have no place in information interchange, and therefore there
is no need to register them. The fact that they do indeed appear on web
pages and in email is an antisocial act on the part of the makers of
email clients, web authoring tools, etc, and it should not be rewarded.
The IANA already made this mistake, and it has helped to pave the way
for the Internet to be hijacked by proprietary architectures.
Step back a moment and consider that most terminal emulators are following
the VT220 or VT320 specification, which comply scrupulously with ISO 4873,
2022, and 6249, in particular in their allocation of the C1 space for
controls. When you put graphics in the C1 space, you break all of these
good and law-abiding network citizens. For example, whatever "smart
quote" or other gewgaw in Code Page Blah corresponds to the C1 DCS (or
APC, OCS, etc) code hangs your session forever if you're not using a
"new enhanced ISO terminal". Imagine the amount of confusion and
frustration this can induce in users of current software, and the amount
of extra labor among support personnel to unwedge their sessions.
Isn't XFree86 Xterm a VT220 emulator? Do we plan to lobotomize it to make
it code-page friendly? Remember that plain-text terminals are the one and
only truly portable and vendor- and fad-independent mode of communication
that remain to us. Let's not destroy the basis upon which they depend.
Also remember that ISO is charged with promoting interoperability of all
platforms. It can't make rules that all platforms are supposed to follow
and then change them for the benefit of one. At least let's hope not.
- Frank
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
