[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
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):