RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Re: [LC Review]

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Rob, All --

While changing to "number of characters" is somewhat more elegant and 
direct, on the other hand it has more serious impact on the document and on 
implementations (I'm thinking, e.g., of MetaCheck code) than simply upping 
the number of octets.  So I have no problem with that latter solution.

Comments, anyone else?  I'd like to get TC views, including the TC-not-WG 
members, before processing it further in the WG.

-Lofton.

At 08:19 AM 9/23/2008 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
>Lofton,
>
>I think the simplest and most expedient approach would be to simply double
>the octet limits.  Otherwise you have to put in verbage defining characters,
>etc.  It could get a little messy, especially if you try to squeeze it into
>a PPF table cell.
>
>Rob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:13 AM
>To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Re: [LC Review]
>
>
>All --
>
>Rob has submitted this comment to the public list of the WebCGM WG:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm/2008Sep/0001.html
>
>It would be good for the TC to discuss it also, since we have some
>WebCGM-ers who aren't in the WG.
>
>Rob ... do you have a specific proposal to kick off discussion in the
>TC?  (Double the octet limits?  Change the limits to characters instead of
>octets?)  Some solutions are easier than others, and different solutions
>have more or less impact on existing software.
>
>(You are right, that users of UTF-16 get half as many characters as users
>of IsoLatin1.  And then there is UTF-8, which could range from
>same-as-Latin1, to *lots* fewer characters, depending on the
>language.  Since WebCGMs are overwhelmingly English-language, in practice
>it is same-as-Latin1.)
>
>Regards,
>-Lofton.