[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: My prod at IDN requirements
At 18:21 04.01.00 +0800, James Seng wrote:
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > UCS-4 is 1 representation - UTF-8 and UTF-16 are representations of the
> > same charset. They have promised (ugh) that it is now only growing, not
> > changing.
> > >maybe? i think different proposals will have answer to this. i think
> we should
> > >leave it open, and not limit to only iso10646 or some other encodings.
>My point is that we may not want to put UCS-4 or ISO10646 as part of the
>requirement. Why don't we leave it open allowing more and varity of different
>proposals. For example, one possible proposal may consider using ISO-2022-X
>and ISO-8859-X character sets.
We should state in the requirements whether representation of characters
not represented in ISO 10646 is desired (I think not - if they aren't in,
they will be - but see below).
> > >this will be a problem if ISO10646 is used. because of the CJK unification
> > >(arggh who is the idiot?), japanese & chinese falls under the same U+4E00
> > >code space. if one folds and the other not, i think it is fairly obvious
> > >how messy it is going to be.
> > Is this a fact or a "maybe a problem"?
> > I think we need to be as specific as possible here....for each folding
> > problem, name a glyph that has the problem, if possible.
>As I have done Unicode CJK implementation, the answer to this is it is "a
>fact". However, I do not eliminate the possibility that I am a lousy
>programmer/designer :-) Maybe someone can come up with a better design and
I haven't, so you know more than me :-)
for my edification, could you please state the names/numbers of the glyphs
that should be folded in Japanese and not in Chinese?
We might end up with a requirement that if ISO 10646 is used, it's possible
to deduce the language of a DNS tag, which I would find deeply troubling,
but if that's agreed to be a requirement, that's a requirement.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway