[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fw: Document Action: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational

To: linux-utf8@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Fw: Document Action: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational
From: Bruno Haible <haible@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:25:38 +0100 (MET)
In-reply-to: <165401bf65c2$0ce72940$cd0d11ac@host205.spb.in.rosprin.ru>
References: <165401bf65c2$0ce72940$cd0d11ac@host205.spb.in.rosprin.ru>
Reply-to: linux-utf8@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-utf8@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Alexander Voropay writes:

>  JFYI. New RFC for "UTF-16".

Ouch.

> ( The archive of <ietf-charsets@xxxxxxxx> :
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-charsets/ )

Thanks for the URL. Summary of the discussions on that list: everyone is
aware of the serious drawbacks of UTF-16 vs. UTF-8, and UTF-8 remains the
recommended Unicode encoding.

Note that BOMs have been assigned a "maybe" status in this new RFC:
"the character 0xFEFF in the first position of a stream MAY be interpreted
as a zero-width non-breaking space, and is not always a byte-order mark."

Bruno
-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fw: Document Action: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational
  - From: H. Peter Anvin

References:
- Fw: Document Action: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational
  - From: Alexander Voropay

Prev by Date: Re: Fw: Document Action: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational
Next by Date: Re: Fw: Document Action: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational
Previous by thread: Re: Fw: Document Action: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational
Next by thread: Re: Fw: Document Action: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread