W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-charsets@w3.org > April to June 2001

(unknown charset) Re: Registration of new charsets UTF-32, UTF-32BE, UTF32LE

From: (unknown charset) Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 12:48:58 +0200
To: (unknown charset) Mark Davis <mark@macchiato.com>, ned.freed@mrochek.com
Cc: (unknown charset) Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Mark Davis <mark.davis@us.ibm.com>, ned.freed@mrochek.com, ietf-charsets@iana.org
Message-id: <78905.989671738@localhost>
--On 01-05-11 10.06 -0700 Mark Davis <markdavis34@home.com> wrote:

> However, if the IETF liaison wants to present a proposal to restrict
> UTF-16 and UTF-32 -- when used as a serialization into bytes, to being
> only BE if there is no BOM, I believe that the UTC would certainly take
> that into consideration. The next meeting is happening very soon...

We have had such discussions, or rather, asked what IETF can/should do to
make sure that we don't get different byte orders inside protocols and at
the same time not override what UTC does.

As you say, UTC definitions are not only used in protocols but also stored
data on disk, and that is for historical reasons in different byte orders.
Going away from that fact is difficult -- even though it would be nice.

Can IETF do something which might help you think?

   Patrik, Liason from IETF to Unicode Consortium
Received on Saturday, 12 May 2001 07:22:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 June 2006 15:10:51 GMT