Re: Best fit

[Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>]

At 01:57 06/10/23, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>I have to admit that Kent does make an important point here. The
>example that really drives that point home is
>Windows-1252-johndoesbetterfit. The best fit tables provided by
>Microsoft are their own choices for mappings from the very large
>Unicode set to smaller sets. Other implementors could and do come up
>with other choices, depending on their particular product, target
>market and current compatibility considerations.
>
>The most important mapping, in my view, is the one from the charset to
>Unicode/10646. RFC 2978 is actually a little bit inconsistent here, in
>that it mentions mappings to 10646 twice, and to/from 10646 only once.
>Just look for "10646" and you will see what I mean.
>
>I believe my attempt to assist in the windows-1252 registration update
>has revealed a lack of consensus

I have seen Kent, Mark, and me clearly against the best-fit
fallbacks (I mentioned they could go into "Additional Information",
but I'd be fine if they weren't around at all). You also seem to
agree with that position. I haven't seen any opinion for or
against these tables from Ned or Frank. So in my eyes, it look
like a consensus is forming, although more people's opinions would
be appreciated.

Regards,    Martin.

>(albeit among a very small number of
>participants) regarding the "best fit" mappings. I wonder if we should
>even restrict the normative/recommended 10646 mappings to the "to
>10646" mappings, making any supplied "from10646" mappings either
>purely informative or maybe even unrecommended, since they appear to
>be controversial.



#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp