[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [idn] NSI Multilingual Testbed Information (fwd)
- To: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)
- Subject: RE: [idn] NSI Multilingual Testbed Information (fwd)
- From: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:12:32 -0400
- Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org
- Delivery-date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:23:12 -0700
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
At 18:20 26/08/00, J. William Semich wrote:
>Semantics aside, if the IESG is applying these policies,
There is no evidence to support a claim that IESG is requiring
use of UTF-8 in all cases. The RFC does NOT say that its required
in all cases, it makes a suggestion, not a hard requirement.
Policies have exceptions, by definition. This is part of the
reason it is a BCP, not a standard.
UTF-8 is one choice. It might be a reasonable choice.
It is not mandated by the IESG or IETF at this time for IDNs.
Please support your use of UTF-8 on technical grounds (I'm sure
you have these), rather than trying to twist the meaning of the
RFC on UTF-8 and making some sort of political/policy argument.
>then, as a
>developer, these are the policies upon which I should base my code - one of
>which is a "MUST" on support for UTF-8 in the protocol.
You have more choices about how to base your code than you
acknowledge above, while still being fully consistent with the
RFC on UTF-8.
I'll also echo Paul's comments. This is an IETF list.
Please use IETF terminology regarding the status of IETF RFCs
on IETF lists. That RFC is a BCP, not any sort of standard.
Claiming otherwise repeatedly does not by itself change reality.
Thank you,
Ran
rja@inet.org