- From: Luc Rooijakkers <luc@opus.spc.nl>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 09:25:11 +0100
- To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>
- Cc: ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM
Masataka Ohta writes: > But, I have disappointed that NET-TEXT does not solve the unfairness, the > currently recognized issue of UTF2, at all. There are some errors in the NET-TEXT message with regard to UTF-2 sequences of more then 3 bytes, but the basic premise was to remain compatible with UTF-2. This may or may not be a worthwhile goal, as Otha-san pointed out rightly, but I believe NET-TEXT is pretty much the minimal extension you can make while still remaining compatible. Anyone want to comment on this? > With additional 2 single octet encoding and 60 two octet encoding at most, > you can't encode non-European characters as efficient as the European > ones. Note that any non-ASCII character requires at least 2 bytes, in any applicable encoding. If I understand you right, you would like 2-octet representations for all of GB, JIS and KSC, right? While this is theoretically possible (these are all 94^2 charsets and hence require 3 * 94^2 = 26508 combinations), I don't see any solution, since there is at most 7 bits per octet available (octets < 128 should occur only when representing the corresponding ASCII character). So, would you be willing to accept 3-byte encodings for these? Also, I'd like some comments from other people as well. > The article also contains imcomplete and incorrect summary of the bof. Incomplete, yes, but could you please explain to me what was incorrect? -- Luc Rooijakkers Internet: lwj@cs.kun.nl SPC Company, the Netherlands UUCP: uunet!cs.kun.nl!lwj --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Thursday, 22 July 1993 00:44:00 UTC