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

Re: Fwd: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Proposed

To: Harald@Alvestrand.no, ietf-charsets@iana.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Proposed
From: Ira Mcdonald <imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:31:38 -0500 (EST)

Hi folks,

I agree with Harald's judgment that Informational and *not*
Proposed Standard is appropriate.  The IETF has done a good
job of updating core IETF protocols to prefer or require
UTF-8.  Over the wire, UTF-16 has a long list of drawbacks
and no visible advantages.  It shouldn't be 'legitimized'
by IETF Proposed Standard designation.

My two cents,
- Ira McDonald
  High North Inc

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fwd: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Proposed
  - From: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
- RE: Fwd: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Proposed
  - From: =?UNKNOWN?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Yergeau <yergeau@ALIS.COM>
- Re: Fwd: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Proposed
  - From: Roman Czyborra <czyborra@taz.de>

Prev by Date: Re: Fwd: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Proposed
Next by Date: Re: Fwd: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Proposed
Prev by thread: Re: Fwd: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Proposed
Next by thread: Re: Fwd: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Proposed
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread