Subject: RE: [idn] 7CE

From: Kenneth Whistler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:49:35 -0700 (PDT)

Yves Arrouye responded to the suggestion:

> >   "UTF-LDH".
> 
> I am strongly against calling UTF-* anything that is not a UTF sanctioned by
> the Unicode Consortium. And I am pretty sure they are too 

I cannot speak for the Unicode Consortium, but speaking as a
technical director of the Unicode Consortium, I would be
virulently opposed to any renaming of any form of an ACE to
"UTF-whatever". Not only would it be confusing, it would also
divert the debate from the technical details of the ACE and its
deployment to a fruitless debate over the confusion itself.

So please, don't start down that road, even in jest.

--Ken

---

From: "Soobok Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:29:38 +0900

If the UTC embraces ACE and augments it to one of its offical unicode
encoding formats, it will _faciliate_ even future pure text/document 
applications or rendering engines to support ACE-rendering feature 
without their programmers' leaving out UTC standards for IETF ACE encoding details.

I hope UTC folks think about embracing ACE encodings seriously.
The naming for ACE (UTF-??? or ACUD or else) is not so important.

Soobok Lee

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:37:08 +0800

Lets not go into the direction of UTF-* naming convention. We are
creating unnecessary confusion for ourselves.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Soobok Lee" <[email-masked]>
To: "Kenneth Whistler" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] 7CE

If the UTC embraces ACE and augments it to one of its offical unicode
encoding formats, it will _faciliate_ even future pure text/document
applications or rendering engines to support ACE-rendering feature
without their programmers' leaving out UTC standards for IETF ACE
encoding details.

Soobok Lee