Re: going back to stone axes -Reply

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>]

Ed Reed writes:
> But there is a fundamental concern I have with your base assumption that
> ascii, especially 7 bit ascii (the lingua franca of the SMTP world) is
> adequate as a character set for representing something as fundamental
> as identity representations around the world.  It's not.

I didn't say it was. I merely asserted that ASCII had certain benefits
over a binary encoding that were not shared by a UNICODE encoding. My
assertion (personal, not as chair) is that if we weren't going with
ASCII, we wouldn't want to go with a UNICODE encoding but with a
binary encoding.

Perry

---

References:

• Re: going back to stone axes -Reply
• From: Ed_Reed@novell.com (Ed Reed)

---

• Prev by Date: DN as Role NOT Identity
• Next by Date: Re: going back to stone axes
• Prev by thread: Re: going back to stone axes -Reply
• Next by thread: Re: going back to stone axes -Reply
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread