Unicode/MIME Internet drafts posted

David Goldsmith <David_Goldsmith@taligent.com> Tue, 15 February 1994 22:31 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17193; 15 Feb 94 17:31 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17188; 15 Feb 94 17:31 EST
Received: from dimacs.rutgers.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22858; 15 Feb 94 17:31 EST
Received: by dimacs.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA19048; Tue, 15 Feb 94 17:09:39 EST
Received: from taligent.com by dimacs.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA19044; Tue, 15 Feb 94 17:09:33 EST
Received: from david-goldsmith.taligent.com by taligent.com with SMTP (5.67/23-Oct-1991-eef) id AA20996; Tue, 15 Feb 94 14:03:44 -0800 for
Message-Id: <9402152203.AA20996@taligent.com>
X-Sender: dgold@banpeikun-rx.taligent.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:03:48 -0800
To: unicored@unicode.org, ietf-822@dimacs.rutgers.edu
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: David Goldsmith <David_Goldsmith@taligent.com>
Subject: Unicode/MIME Internet drafts posted
Cc: ietf-charsets@innosoft.com

New versions of documents I previously posted to the ietf-822 and unicored
mailing lists are now available as Internet Drafts (they should be at your
local RFC repository now or shortly). The ASCII versions should be
available first, with Postscript versions to follow. The documents are:

draft-goldsmith-mime-unicode-00.txt (or .ps)
draft-goldsmith-mime-utf7-00.txt (or .ps)

Respectively, they specify the general use of Unicode as a MIME charset,
and a specific new transformation format of Unicode that is designed for
use with Internet mail and news.

On the good advice of many people involved with the IETF, I've changed the
documents to specify Unicode 1.1 instead of ISO/IEC-10646. This is partly
due to the greater level of specificity in Unicode 1.1 as to character
properties and handling of combining forms. Also, since ISO 10646 is an
international standard, several people felt that the IETF would want to
take a more deliberate and careful approach to standardizing its usage on
the Internet.

These new proposals were made primarily to get a reasonable charset defined
quickly so that the Internet community can start to gain experience with
Unicode (and 10646), which is the usual Internet approach to assimilating
new technology. To that end, these proposals should be viewed as
experimental, and they are intended to be submitted as Experimental RFCs.

This experience will help determine the right course for the 10646 effort.
At some point in the future, a set of 10646 charset names should be defined
for use with MIME; they may or may not refer to the same encoding as these

Thanks, everyone, for your help and suggestions so far.

David Goldsmith
Taligent, Inc.
10201 N. DeAnza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA  95014-2233