Ohata-san,
I am finding your constant insults and putdowns of other people to be
very tiresome.
Please get this into your head: it is possible that someone might
disagree with you for reasons other than ignorance. Each time I read
one of your replies you are again attacking someone as ignorant
Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830 dot hpcl dot titech dot ac dot jp
wrote:
If your scope is limited within UK, FR and DE, Latin-1 could be
usable, within Europe (including countries using European
languages/characters), unicode could be.
But, if your scope includes CN and JP, unicode is
Doug Ewell wrote:
For more information on this enlightening and forward-thinking approach
to internationalization, the interested reader may be directed to RFC 1815.
Thank you for a good reference.
Today, people in Japan receiving unicode encoded Chinese mail
do suffer and complain.
Many
Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830 dot hpcl dot titech dot ac dot jp
wrote:
Many Kanji characters in JIS are displayed with Japanese font while
many other Kanji characters not in JIS are some Chinese font, because
of lack of information of unicode, which has been obvious long before
I wrote
Ohta san,
At 13:06 19-03-10, Masataka Ohta wrote:
It merely means IETF documents MUST BE internationally legible,
that is, pure ASCII.
Actually no, the text does not refer to IETF documents. But that
could be misunderstood because of the subject line I used or because
of the thread the
SM wrote:
It merely means IETF documents MUST BE internationally legible,
that is, pure ASCII.
Actually no, the text does not refer to IETF documents.
Then, it depends on scope of the document and whether you need
bi-directional communication or not (here after, bi-directional
communication
The idea that Knowledge Representation must occur in English means those
that speak it poorly, and many others fail to reach the people who are
part of the constituency and as such they fall short of the IETF's
capabilities to deliver. They also may actually become victims of the
language
At 04:02 19-03-10, Dave Cridland wrote:
The IAB made a clear statement that we need i18n support, yet over a
decade after RFC 2130 or RFC 2825, the RFCs themselves still have a
strict ASCII limitation. Sure, that wasn't mentioned at the time, but
does nobody else find this plain shameful?
As
SM wrote:
The IAB made a clear statement that we need i18n support, yet over a
decade after RFC 2130 or RFC 2825, the RFCs themselves still have a
strict ASCII limitation. Sure, that wasn't mentioned at the time, but
does nobody else find this plain shameful?
As seen in an I-D:
The
On 3/19/2010 1:06 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
SM wrote:
The IAB made a clear statement that we need i18n support, yet over a
decade after RFC 2130 or RFC 2825, the RFCs themselves still have a
strict ASCII limitation. Sure, that wasn't mentioned at the time, but
does nobody else find this
todd glassey wrote:
It merely means IETF documents MUST BE internationally legible,
that is, pure ASCII.
No, it means that they must be internationally available. And since many
people DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH mandating them to be in English eliminates
those party's participation.
It's a lot
11 matches
Mail list logo
