[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] KRNIC position paper
A very clear and reasonable position paper, pointing out a number of
places where the requirements document could be clearer. Thank you!
One comment:
At 07:08 25.03.00 +0900, GIM Gyeongseog-KIM Kyongsok wrote:
>4. whether to adopt short- or mid-range solution for IDN?
> We can think of three different solutions:
> a) short-range solution: 7-bit with some encoding;
> b) mid-range solution: e.g., 8-bit/UTF-8
> c) long-range solution: UCS without any transofrmation
Note that *all* representations of the UCS are, in some sense, transformations.
The choice here, given ISO 10646 as base character set, is between UTF-8,
UTF-16 (2-3 flavours) and UTF-32 (some flavors) for bits transported on the
wire.
So the question is whether there is reason to switch from "midrange"
solution to some other transformation at a later date.
Harald
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no