From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 12:09:48 CST
Henry Spencer wrote:
> 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.
Please follow the thread. Bernstein claimed that utf-8 should have been
required in 1994 and required as a default in 1998. Unicode didn't
have a language-tagging facility until Unicode 3.1 introduced in mid-2001.
In 1998, 2047/2231 *did* have language tagging, as required by RFC 2277.
So claims of what Unicode 3.1/3.2 are capable of in contexts where MIME
is not used (which doesn't include news articles; see the Usefor charter)
is irrelevant to the issue discussed, viz. what could be standardized in
1994/1998.