Subject: Re: UK national body concerns about P1885R1 'Naming Text Encodings to Demystify Them'
From: Corentin (corentin.jabot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-03-24 04:35:14
Thanks for your feedback
A few things:
* It does not evolve a lot (Neither the database nor the proposal are
forward looking - RFC3808 is from 2004)
* There is nothing more complete (or more official)
* It has vendor buy in (form Microsoft and IBM for which it maps to their
code page), the same names are also used by iconv on unix system
* It is widely used by browsers, mail clients
* We have experience with referencing rfc in the standards.
* If this is still a concern, we could duplicate the entire thing in the
standard - which I would recommend against.
That standard registry is pivotal to the proposal portability. we need to
agree on names and meaning.
I hope that helps,
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 09:26, Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi Corentin and SG16,
> We discussed P1885R1 briefly in the British Standards Institute meeting
> We support the general direction of the paper and agree that it seeks to
> solve a real problem. We support further work.
> We have significant concerns about the proposal to rely on the IANA
> registry and RFC2978/RFC3808 process, including a normative reference to
> the Character Sets database. The Character Sets database is not an
> International Standard and is maintained by a process that appears to
> provide neither the quality assurance nor the checks and balances built
> into the ISO process.
> Best regards,
SG16 list run by email@example.com