> To date, the only folks who have publicly stated support for all of
> this has been those participants from Xerox. Despite the "research"
> about how some implementations behave, the people who developed those
> implementations have not said a WORD on this mailing list in support
> of the proposal...and those very people are the ones who said "No"
> to the proposal some time ago.
> When does "No" mean NO, anyway??
They said "no" to a different proposal. The current proposal merely
documents existing implementation and allows implementations to comply
with the RFC2130 recommendation to use UTF-8 as the default code set.
At least one major vendor (HP) has already stated that they are using
the 8th bit in their description strings.
I am as sick of this topic as everyone else. But, simply saying were
going to wait for the IETF to come up with some magic solution is a
cop-out IMHO. I believe we have an opportunity and a responsibility to
fix what is broken -- especially when it helps to document existing