Doug Ewell wrote: > Ohta and I are never going to agree on this Han unification issue, but > at least I suspect he understands that it is not "an IETF langtag > issue." It is nothing of the sort. It is a dispute over the design of > ISO 10646. What a poor understanding on the internatinalization. RFC 3066 is incorrect to state (despite my counter arguments with counter examples): The issue of deciding upon the rendering of a character set based on the language tag is not addressed in this memo; however, it is thought impossible to make such a decision correctly for all cases unless means of switching language in the middle of a text are defined (for example, a rendering engine that decides font based on Japanese or Chinese language may produce suboptimal output when a mixed Japanese-Chinese text is encountered) The reality is that tags for content language is orthogonal to charset. Japanese language can be expressed in ASCII as follows: Kore ha nihongo no bun desu. English language can be expressed Japanese characters. Just like that, Japanese language can be expressed in Chinese characters, Chinese language can be expressed in Japanese characters. So, language tag does not help "to make such a decision correctly" at all, even if "means of switching language in the middle of a text are defined" It is a plain fact of life not affected by IETF, though Harald has been ignoring only to make text processing complex for any good purpose. > Anyone who wants to know what RFC 3066bis is really about is invited to > read it themselves: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt It is as bad as 3066. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf