[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ddlm-group] On process

• To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
• Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] On process
• From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
• Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 06:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
• In-Reply-To: <20100702082500.GA26545@emerald.iucr.org>
• References: <20100702082500.GA26545@emerald.iucr.org>

Sounds reasonble to me.  I think the process will help us
come to much needed closure on CIF2 and DDLm. Full speed
ahead!!! -- Herbert

=====================================================
  Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
    Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
         Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769

                  +1-631-244-3035
                  yaya@dowling.edu
=====================================================

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Brian McMahon wrote:

> Colleagues
>
> Like Buridan's ass we are starving to death between the equally
> enticing mound of hay that is UTF-8 and the smorgasbord of mixed
> vegetables offered by multiple encodings.
>
> I suggest that this group complete a *draft* CIF2 specification
> that describes (if necessary) specific character allusions in
> terms of a canonical UTF-8 encoding, and states that UTF-8 is the
> designated encoding for files conformant to the specification.
>
> Post the completed draft in the first instance to the cif-developers
> list (since that is supposed to the the most relevant target audience),
> but certainly to other lists at the same time if folk think that would
> be productive. By all means accompany the release with a commentary on
> the difficulties we have faced over the encoding issue; by all means
> implement a survey and analyse the results to assess community demand
> for an upward revision of the draft - but let us give people something
> concrete to begin with, and challenge them actively to protest if the
> proposal will impede their work.
>
> Note that this proposal doesn't necessarily reflect a personal
> preference for a single mandatory encoding - I still cannot
> decide which I "prefer". But if the suggested draft is published,
> I will not vote against it unless I suddenly see clearly a real
> problem that it would throw up in the way of any applications I
> would envisage writing. I would hope "the community" would respond
> in similar vein, so that stated objections would both represent real
> difficulties and help to define the environments giving rise to these
> real difficulties.
>
> Best wishes
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> ddlm-group mailing list
> ddlm-group@iucr.org
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• References:
  • [ddlm-group] On process (Brian McMahon)

• Prev by Date: [ddlm-group] On process
• Next by Date: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
• Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] On process
• Next by thread: [ddlm-group] Community consulation regarding CIF2 encoding
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread