Re: Fwd: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Proposed from Roman Czyborra on 1999-12-16 (ietf-charsets@w3.org from October to December 1999)

From: Roman Czyborra <czyborra@taz.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:24:50 +0100 (MET)
To: Ira Mcdonald <imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com>
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf-charsets@iana.org, unicode@unicode.org
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9912161820270.30703-100000@diva.edv.taz.de>

Ira McDonald wrote:

> 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,

Plus mine makes three.

http://czyborra.com/utf/ lists all the drawbacks.

Received on Thursday, 16 December 1999 14:20:49 UTC