PMP Mail Archive: PMP> Straw vote needed for Multiple vs. UTF-8 Encodings

PMP Mail Archive: PMP> Straw vote needed for Multiple vs. UTF-8 Encodings

PMP> Straw vote needed for Multiple vs. UTF-8 Encodings

JK Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 18:21:45 -0400 (EDT)

I completely agree. We at least need a "straw vote" of the PMP
to see how many people insist on multiple encodings versus having
only the single UTF-8 format.

Lloyd and Chris: will you please call for such a vote?

(Or do I have to say "URGENT, URGENT!!"?... ;-)

...jay

----- Begin Included Message -----

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:17:01 PST
From: David_Kellerman@nls.com
To: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: PMP> URGENT: SYNTHESIS proposal on definition of OCTET STRING to
allow superset of ASCII

Chris and Lloyd, here's a suggestion that might add some helpful input
on the character set stuff.

One of the key issues is, do we opt for multiple code sets, or do we opt
for UTF-8? This is part of the swords-and-armor debate that I alluded
to previously. Tom and Ira (and presumably most of Xerox) definitely
land in the "multiple" camp. Yes, I'm a "unitarian." This issue has
been debated ad-infinitum elsewhere, and I don't see where we get
anywhere debating it once more.

What I do think might help would be for Lloyd and Chris to go back to
the area directors and get further clarification as to how the IETF and
SNMP worlds are inclined. As I noted in my previous message, I see a
preponderance of evidence that they have chosen the unitarian approach.
Tom and Ira read it differently, but I think they're trying shove a
camel through the eye of a needle. Maybe I'm wrong -- we ought to find
out.

In contrast to the political complications, I do think the technical
complications of adopting a unitarian approach in this case may actually
be quite modest, and worth evaluating carefully.

:: David Kellerman Northlake Software 503-228-3383
:: david_kellerman@nls.com Portland, Oregon fax 503-228-5662

----- End Included Message -----