Re: International Issues @ 3.4.2[6] and 9.

[Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>]

"Hollenbeck, Scott" wrote:


> This is where I'm getting confused.  As currently written (by Harald
> Alvestrand), 9.-[2] basically says that we MUST represent data in accordance
> with international standards for the data in question, and that we MAY need
> to represent it twice (which implies (maybe this is the problem) once in
> ASCII format and once in an optional non-ASCII format).  An
> internationalization requirement would be out of place in 3.4.2.
> 
> Are you suggesting that 9.-[2] should more explicitly state that one of the
> social information representations MUST be ASCII, and a second non-ASCII
> format is OPTIONAL?
> 
> <Scott/>

To me the wording of 9[2] is a bit vague and abstract. After your comment, I
re-read the paragraph multiple times, and I can interpret it in my sense now.
My mistake was that I applied the "appropriate thought" to the previously
mentioned country information/phone number format only. The following text
talks about "formatting" which does not necessarily include a limitation of
the allowed characters (in my understanding). 

I don't think that we need to mention the use of an Latin letter subset as a
MUST, as I don't want to exclude a more intelligent and/or less western
oriented solution from the final protocol. My only aim is to have the problem
and its importance addressed clearly.

regards,

Klaus Malorny


___________________________________________________________________________
     |       |
     | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
      -------                           Technologiepark
                                        Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
     Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
     Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de             Tel. +49 231 9703 0