From: Henry Spencer (henry@spsystems.net)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 11:37:18 CST
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> >>UTF-8 does not adequately address i18n issues (language-tsgging)...
> > As others have noted, 2047-amended has its problems... and modern Unicode
> > (and thus UTF-8) *does* address language tagging...
>
> MIME does not lack higher-level tagging facilities and is specifically
> mentioned in the Unicode documents as one of those areas where the Unicode
> language-tagging facility is not to be used.
Correct but completely irrelevant, since the issue under discussion was
UTF-8 as an alternative to MIME. You were claiming that MIME was superior
because it had language tagging and UTF-8 didn't; that's incorrect.
> Moreover, as Dan Kohn has
> pointed out (on ietf-822), that language-tagging facility is under review
> (it likely will be deprecated).
Perhaps, and perhaps not. It is already "strongly discouraged", with
various similar phrases encouraging one to avoid it unless there is no
reasonable alternative. However, it *is* part of Unicode and is not
going to go away.
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net