Subject: [Ltru] Re: UTF-8 in which field? (Was: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-07

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:18:37 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

> If "non-ASCII" isn't sufficiently positive, a proper reformulation 
> would be:
>
> --
> The 'Description' field MAY include the full range of Unicode 
> characters. At least one of the 'Description' fields MUST be written 
> or transcribed into the Latin script; additional 'Description' fields 
> MAY also include a description in a non-Latin script.

I like this quite a bit, and one of the things I like about it is what 
it does NOT say.  It does NOT say that at least one of the Description 
fields must be written or transcribed into pure ASCII.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:19:19 -0700

> fields must be written or transcribed into pure ASCII.

Cool. Although I note that this is not novel. RFC 4646 says exactly 
that. And on purpose too.

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Unicadet

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 06:45:59 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

>> I like this quite a bit, and one of the things I like about it is 
>> what it does NOT say.  It does NOT say that at least one of the 
>> Description fields must be written or transcribed into pure ASCII.
>

Yes, but since it seems to have become a bit controversial of late, it's 
good to see that it isn't changing.