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

I think the distinction is not that important in this case,
I could live with both. But it would be great to see this
getting done soon. It has been a long time.

Regards,   Martin.

At 23:31 1999/12/15 -0500, Ira Mcdonald wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-#  mailto:duerst@w3.org   http://www.w3.org