re: character sets.....
Mike O'Dell <email@example.com> Tue, 30 May 1995 12:20 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01285;
30 May 95 8:20 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01281; 30 May 95 8:20 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04180; 30 May 95 8:20 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01274; 30 May 95 8:20 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01268; 30 May 95 8:20 EDT
Received: from rodan.UU.NET by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04175; 30 May 95 8:20 EDT
Received: by rodan.UU.NET id QQyryn08675; Tue, 30 May 1995 08:21:31 -0400
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 08:21:31 -0400
From: Mike O'Dell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: re: character sets.....
just as a warmup..... the problem of "character sets" is fundamentally impossible to solve in a "universal" fashion for a number of reasons having nothing to do with computer science and everything to do with Linguistics. While I'm not a Lingust, I'm married to one and have had extensive discussions with a retired Chair of the Columbia Linguistics Department (who now does computer stuff) and who tracks the "character set standard" efforts quite closely (Unicode, 10664, etc). he is continually amazed and amused by what he sees there and the profound lack of deep understanding of the subject area revealed by them. at the next telechat, i'll go over some of his thoughts on the subject and why it's pointless to bust a gut on the topic. (although we might make the situation slightly better, we cannot make it good, much less right.) -mo