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.
* 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.
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.