Re: [idn] We are quibbling about WHAT?

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Hi Dave. How's Bolivia (or Peru)?

Not to quibble overly, but ...

There are 63 elements in the -0-9A-Za-z set, or 6 bits (minus one).

Worse, with case folding, there are 37 elements in the -0-9Aa-Zz set,
or 5 bits (plus 5).

The "6.5-bit ASCII" tag is ... generous. How about "sub-6-bit-SKI",
or "Modern Baudot" (Baudot used 5 bits, with the LTRS and FIGS chars
to switch between two 31 valued repetoires, of which 27 had unique
values). It is very much in the spirit of ACE.

UTF-8 does not take an 8859-1 string and transform it into what some
have referred to as "ASCII-gibberish". Repeat for -2, -3, ... -9.

That said, I don't think anyone working on an 8-bit proposal, which
means those in which the value of "A" is 0100 0001 (8859-1), rather
than x100 0001 (ASCII), where "x" indicates "don't care", and allows
for some multi-byte extension, e.g., UTF-8, picked an 8-bit clean
approach for length reasons. I also don't think anyone working on
any 7-bit proposal, favorably referred to as "ACE", and available
in more shapes, colors and sizes than shoes, picked an 8-bit dirty
approach for length reasons.

I think the encapsulate vs extend debate is about architecture. It
just happens that 63 bytes does focus some attention on effective
characters per mechanism, and encapsulation schemes using only 5 bits
plus a nickle per octet are at a disadvantage over extension schemes
that use at least 7 bits per octet.

Most of the ACE variation numbers are concerned with CJK character
repetoires, I don't recall seeing any for 8859-* repetoires. This
may be selective memory on my part, but if it isn't, this is a topic
worth visiting.

The transition impact discussion can't be refuted. It was the subject
of RFC 801, and others. I'm particularly fond of lines 51 - 64 of
that transition plan by the way.

Time to choose an ACE and move on? I'll pass thanks. A half-dozen
browser-hack marketeers, a trio of monopolies, and the DNSO food
fight, is inadequate motivation to solve a complex problem. A good
solution is, and differences in that are why we are where we are.

Bifurcation of the WG is a possibility, it has its merits. So too
has closure. Or, the co-chairs can find "rough consensus" and try
and get working code creditable.

Eric
P.S. I'd like a reproduction Quipu, please.
Eric