Re: ISO/IEC 10646 as Document Character Set

Eric W. Sink (
Thu, 4 May 95 15:40:44 EDT

>Glenn Adams writes:
> >
> > Date: Thu, 4 May 95 11:00:34 EDT
> > From: (Dan Connolly)
> >
> > I am against putting it [10646 as doc charset] in the 2.0 document at
> > this point.
> >
> > Would it be possible for you to put out an electronic vote on this?
>It's possible, but I don't think it's valuable. Eric? I think
>we need the chair in on this one.

IETF Working Groups don't vote.

I am against putting 10646 as the doc charset in the 2.0 document. I wouldn't
fuss much about putting in a remark about it as a future direction. A wouldn't
cry if the remark were absent either. I just don't think 10646 as a doc charset
has anything to do with current practice.

>HTML 2.0 is a well known quantity in a fairly large community. We do a
>disservice by changing it at this point. We just need to clean up
>the wording and publish it.

Yes, definitely. Right now, the HTML 2.0 document is one of SEVERAL documents
we're working on. It is basically done. These last qualms about making sure
that the wording of the spec doesn't limit our progress in future directions
for i18n are fine and part of due diligence, but let us not get distracted
from getting this document totally finished. We need to be able to focus
our attention on the tables document, the i18n document, and so on.

Eric W. Sink
Senior Software Engineer, Spyglass