My other e-mail was a real "moji-baka", I'd say. That would be a good term, 文字馬鹿. The University of Connecticut is, surprisingly, a mojibaka. And they have two of what look like Chinese newspapers. (I say Chinese because no kana.)
Onna is a *bit* of a mojibaka. I can recieve OK but not send. That makes it a semi-mojibaka. Is mojibaka a real word? ★じゅういっちゃん★ 私はろこえんらかべさ。 Riddle of the week: What song is 35971040100? That is not a catalog number. Hint: the chorus is 3597104042 --- Original Message --- 差出人: Tex Texin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 宛先: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Cc: 日時: 01/07/12 15:51 件名: Re: Is there Unicode mail out there? >(I didnt read all the thread so maybe I missed a step). > >So the proposal is that minimizing the charset is a good thing? > >This means that you and I start out in a conversation about a >product I am trying to sell you, it happens to be all in ascii >and we exchange several mails successfully. Then I quote you >a price in Euros and my 1252 message gets corrupted by your >reader which can handle either only 8859-1 or ASCII, and >you miss the fact that the Euro is corrupted and think we >are talking dollars or some other currency. > >Although I understand why you would want a minimal charset in order >to not needlessly prevent communications, the implication of >reliability and trust that is built by having some success is >a problem. You think you are communicating successfully but when it >is critical it may not... > >Perhaps if a harder line was taken when characters >are used that cannot be converted, this would make more sense. >(ie give a very clear recognizable indication of corruption or >conversion failures) > >tex > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> In a message dated 2001-07-11 15:03:27 Pacific Daylight Time, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> > One exception to this should be US-ASCII because not only the repertoire >> > of US-ASCII is a subset of the repertoire of UTF-8 but also the >> > representation of all characters in US-ASCII is identical in UTF-8. >> > A smart mail client would notice that all characters >> > are in US-ASCII repertoire and label outgoing messages as in >> > US-ASCII EVEN if it's configured to label outgoing messages >> > in UTF-8 >> [...] >> >> I thought this might even be enshrined in an RFC. It certainly makes sense. >> If you are using a mailer that sends CP1252 down the wire (not that this is a >> good idea, but some mailers do this), the mailer should examine the message >> and if it only contains US-ASCII characters, the message should be tagged as >> US-ASCII. Otherwise, if it only contains ISO 8859-1, it should be tagged as >> ISO 8859-1. Only if it actually contains CP1252 characters, like smart >> quotes or long dashes, should it be tagged as CP1252. As Jungshik observed, >> the same goes for UTF-8. >> >> -Doug Ewell >> Fullerton, California > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Tex Texin Director, International Business >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-781-280-4271 >Fax:+1-781-280-4655 >the Progress Company 14 Oak Park, Bedford, MA 01730 >--------------------------------------------------------------- > >
