• From: Peter Flynn <peter@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:47:34 +0000

On 01/02/12 16:53, Pete Cordell wrote:
> Ignorance is a very acceptable excuse in IMO. Talking to computers was a
> very ASCII affair in those days (e.g. C) and it would seem reasonable
> that computers would talk to computers in the same way.
>
> My recollection is that for those of us who weren't Internationalisation
> gurus, choosing Latin-1 was considered really pushing the
> Internationalisation boat out!

There was certainly an element of that at the time. But a lot of the 
effort was really on the traditional basis of rough consensus and 
running code. A lot of this stuff was still relatively new, and only a 
few people were thinking of non-European or non-Latin-alphabet languages.

And I see that Unicode added another 700-odd characters to the 
repertoire recently...

///Peter

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>

• References:
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • RE: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Tei <oscar.vives@g...>
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>
  • RE: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>