C++ Logo

SG16

Advanced search

Subject: Re: UK national body concerns about P1885R1 'Naming Text Encodings to Demystify Them'
From: Corentin (corentin.jabot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-03-24 05:46:47


I think the standard can ignore the IANA registery and only mention both
RFC. Will have to iron this out with wordsmiths!

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 11:43, Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Corentin,
>
>
>
> As I understand it, it’s not the RFC that’s the concern (IETF are pretty
> good), it’s the IANA registry.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>
> *Sent:* 24 March 2020 10:42
> *To:* Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]>
> *Cc:* sg16_at_[hidden]; Roger Orr <rogero_at_[hidden]>;
> guy_at_[hidden]
> *Subject:* Re: UK national body concerns about P1885R1 'Naming Text
> Encodings to Demystify Them'
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL MAIL
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 11:26, Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hi Corentin,
>
>
>
> Thanks for replying so promptly! I personally agree that there is
> nothing more suitable available.
>
>
>
> One of the suggestions that was made in the UK national body meeting was
> that there could be an International Standard nomenclature for text
> encodings, possibly as part of the Unicode effort. Do you think that it
> would be useful?
>
>
>
> Maybe if people were still doing encodings a lot?
>
> But non-unicode encodings need to be supported for existing system, not
> new systems... so I think such effort would be 30 years too late :)
>
> Beside I do think a RFC is perfectly suitable. if it is good enough for
> tcp, it should be good enough for us too.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>
> *Sent:* 24 March 2020 09:35
> *To:* Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]>
> *Cc:* sg16_at_[hidden]; Roger Orr <rogero_at_[hidden]>;
> guy_at_[hidden]
> *Subject:* Re: UK national body concerns about P1885R1 'Naming Text
> Encodings to Demystify Them'
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL MAIL
>
> Hey!
>
> 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,
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Corentin
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> yesterday.
>
> 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,
>
> Peter
>
>



SG16 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com