RE: Revised proposal for UTF-16

[Harald Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>]

At 00:10 26.05.98 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
>Won't messages coded in UTF-16 usually have a clear 
>beginning, and be long enough that the extra two bytes
>overhead is not a problem?
>e.g. UTF-16 if used in, say, some future HTTP, would be
>quite happy with this.

The body parts of HTTP are no problem (I think).
But what about some future LDAP, SVRLOC, DNS or PPP?
Or even the headers of HTTP?

>Maybe it'll be ok if we only worry about the issue when messages
>coded in UTF-16 touch the Internet, and not worry about
>database internals; presumably people writing non-Internet-
>connected databases can keep their byte order straight
>without the IETF's help.

:-)

>I think either of two ways can get us the clarity we crave:
>1. Mandate a certain byte order for UTF-16 messages that
>hit the Internet.
>2. Mandate a BOM at the start of each UTF-16 message
>that hits the Internet.
At the start of every text string?

>#1 is probably bitter medicine for those on the
>losing side.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
>#2 is probably palatable to all concerned.
>
>Apologies to all if I'm out of line here.  
>Actually, I tried to unsubscribe several times
>a few years ago, and this exchange is my vengeance
>upon the listserv for not letting me go :-)

Ned? We may have a way of reaching consensus :-)

             Harald

-- 
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no