Re: ISO/IEC 10646 as Document Character Set

Dan Connolly (
Thu, 4 May 95 11:00:57 EDT

Gavin Nicol writes:
> >a) charset has to be specified by the server, if ever possible.
> >b) If that is missing, ISO 8859-1 is assumed.
> >c) For worldwide handling, servers are (kindly) requested to
> > make their data available in one of a very few encodings
> > (centerd around ISO 10646).
> >d) For backward compatibility and local convenience, other
> > codings may be used locally, but have to be specified.
> >[e) as a small warning to implementers: There is/was also
> > the practice of using local encodings without specfying
> > them. This practice is strongly discouraged, but it may
> > continue to exist for some time in some local areas.]
> This is, in essence, what I have been striving for since late last
> year. We *are* getting there slowly...

I agree. But I am against putting it in the 2.0 document at this
point. Heck: the thing is in last call! I'll be careful not to
do anything that conflicts with deployment of ISO10646, but
I don't want to make that jump yet.

How is "The Multilingual Web" doing? Have you submitted it as an
internet draft yet? We've argued these issues to the point that we're
starting to "swirl." We should have a document in front of us, and we
should be niggling over the p's and q's.

Eric: what are the milestones now? When do we expect to have the
internationalization stuff ready?