🚀 go-pugleaf

atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson) writes:

>In article <keld.723675587@login.dkuug.dk> keld@login.dkuug.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) writes:


>>The support for Eastern Europe is at the same level as the Western
>>Europe support. 

>  People from Eastern Europe that I know that have seen and commented
>on your work have all indicated that the encodings for some characters
>in Eastern European languages were not at all mnemonic and all along
>for over a year you have cited its alleged "mnemonic" nature as the
>chief value of your work.  Others have also observed that the
>encodings for other languages, such as Japanese, were not very useful
>or mnemonic.  You have been aware of this for some long time now.  The
>IETF-822 archives bear this out.

I am amused by your way of reasoning.
I just mentioned the Easter Europe, and you talk on Japanese.
I have not heard of any Eastern Europe criticism, I have
on the other hand quite positive remarks from Hungarians.
I would like to see the comments, if you have any - could
you send me a copy - maybe by private mail?

I was referring the Latin script support for Eastern Europe,
not Cyrillic. Anyway the Russians seem quite content with the
Cyrillic support, but this support is of cause different from 
Latin support, where you are able in most cases to have the
base latin letter in ASCII.

>  In the MIME working group, you had very much less credibility at the
>end when the MIME rfc was published than at the start -- directly
>because of your repeated blatant misrepresentations of facts.

Well, I think it was your credibility that diminished thru
the discussions. You continued to write articles with request that
had no technical content or constructive proposals, and
misrepresentations of facts on my work. The IETF archives
shows this very clearly.

>  You explicitly tried to get YOUR rfc approved as a Standards Track
>RFC.  This is what I stated earlier and this is fully confirmed by the
>IETF-822 archives.  The IESG clearly decided that your work was not
>suitable for the standards track.

This was because it was of informational nature.
I just followed the advise of the WG chair and the WG on this.

>  The IESG also rejected your secondary attempt to make your work
>appear to be "standard" when it is not by getting the MIME document to
>cite it.  This was also rejected on the grounds that it was not
>standards material and because the reference was unneeded and because
>of very widespread concerns about whether anyone could determine if
>your tables were accurate and because of IESG administrative reasons.
>I have email from IESG members that bears this out.  Much or all of
>this is also in the IETF-822 archives directly.  You already have
>known this for some time.

Well, actually I do not know why it was rejected in the end.
EUnet appealed to get mnemonic included in the mandatory
set of supported character sets in MIME - as it was decided by the
working group.
I had communications with IETF officials, but no official
decisions on the appeal from them. If you have further info 
I would certainly like to see it.

Keld