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

RE: Revised proposal for UTF-16

To: Harald Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>,Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Subject: RE: Revised proposal for UTF-16
From: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 06:55:36 -0700
Cc: ietf-charsets@ISI.EDU
In-reply-to: <3.0.2.32.19980526194317.018d6990@127.0.0.1>
References: <3.0.5.32.19980526001020.00a1db10@alumni.caltech.edu><3.0.2.32.19980526083650.009f6a10@127.0.0.1><3.0.5.32.19980525182659.00a1ed90@alumni.caltech.edu><000601bd8835$86780a20$15d0000d@copper-208.parc.xerox.com><3.0.5.32.19980525011022.0098f2a0@alumni.caltech.edu>

At 07:43 PM 5/26/98 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>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?

I suppose one could say that the BOM need only
appear in the first text string in the protocol
session, for session-oriented protocols,
or the first text string in the packet,
for non-session-oriented protocols.

- Dan

References:
- RE: Revised proposal for UTF-16
  - From: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>
- RE: Revised proposal for UTF-16
  - From: Harald Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>
- RE: Revised proposal for UTF-16
  - From: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>
- Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16
  - From: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>
- RE: Revised proposal for UTF-16
  - From: Harald Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>

Prev by Date: Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16
Next by Date: Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16
Prev by thread: RE: Revised proposal for UTF-16
Next by thread: Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread