Re: Revised language on: ISO/IEC 10646 as Document Character Set

Michael J Hannah (mjhanna@sandia.gov)
Tue, 9 May 95 19:28:10 EDT

Ned Freed <NED@SIGURD.INNOSOFT.COM> wrote:
> I agree that this is a key issue. You've already lost the battle if you
> let the question of whether or not character sets exist that are
> "richer" than 10646 even get asked. The MIME work provided ample
> evidence that this is a highly political question, so much so that
> different groups will give different answers and nothing will ever
> persuade them to change their position.

As an active participant in the development of IEEE 1003 POSIX
standards which reference the ISO/IEC 10646 standard, and in the
activities to get the POSIX standards approved as ISO standards, let me
add my voice to Ned's that this is a *VERY* political question. He is
*completely* correct that if you even let the question be asked, you
have lost the battle.

(Boy does this press one of my buttons! :-)
__________________________________________________________________________

Michael J. Hannah "Opinions are mine only,
Scientific Computing Systems and will change without notice
Department 13918, Mail Stop 0806 whenever appropriate."

_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/
_/ _/_/ _/ _/ SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES _/_/
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Scientific Computing Systems _/_/_/_/_/_/
/ _/ _/_/ _/ Albuquerque, NM 87185-0806 _/ _/_/ _/
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/
_/_/_/
"Exceptional Service in the National Interest"

__________________________________________________________________________