From erik@sran8.sra.co.jp Thu Feb 28 08:11:03 1991 Received: from mcsun.EU.net by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA14334; Thu, 28 Feb 91 08:11:03 +0100 Received: from srawgw.sra.co.jp by mcsun.EU.net with SMTP; id AA25014 (5.65a/CWI-2.75); Thu, 28 Feb 91 08:10:46 +0100 Received: from srava.sra.co.jp by srawgw.sra.co.jp (5.64WH/1.4) id AA20934; Thu, 28 Feb 91 16:11:56 +0900 Received: from sran8.sra.co.jp by srava.sra.co.jp (5.64b/6.4J.6-BJW) id AA09755; Thu, 28 Feb 91 16:10:08 +0900 Received: from localhost by sran8.sra.co.jp (4.0/6.4J.6-SJ) id AA23058; Thu, 28 Feb 91 16:08:32 JST Return-Path: Message-Id: <9102280708.AA23058@sran8.sra.co.jp> Reply-To: erik@sra.co.jp From: Erik M. van der Poel To: wg15rin@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (wg15rin 81) Re: national profiles Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 16:08:29 +0900 Sender: erik@sran8.sra.co.jp X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 > In the end I would expect you to have a need for more than one > national profile, that is at least what we have in mind in Denmark... Could you tell us a bit more about Denmark's plans? > > The Danish sample national profile appearing in ISO POSIX.1 contains > > references to the sample charmap and locale in POSIX.2. However, if a > > national profile is something that must be conformed to, is it > > reasonable to specify a charmap? > > The boundaries between POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 are not fully clear. > We were asked to provide an Input Method in POSIX.1 and you > know Input Methods! We did an IM dependent on the ISO_10646 charmap. > That should be general enough to us. There seems to be some misunderstanding. What I meant was that if we put a Shift-JIS charmap in the main part of the national profile, EUC systems would not pass the conformance test. It is unreasonable to try to force people to use a particular encoding. That is why I suggest that sample charmaps be put in informative annexes. > Well, I think the 0208 and the Shift-JIS charmaps should contain the > same symbolic character names when the characters are the same. I fully agree that we should harmonize the symbolic names. > 10646 should contain all of them. There is a problem with this, however. The Shift-JIS encoding provides for two different types of Katakana, namely Zenkaku (full-width) and Hankaku (half-width). On the other hand, as far as I know, 10646 only has codepoints for one set of Katakana. (Personally, I think that 10646 is wrong on this one, but I'm sure many people would disagree with me...) Erik