- From: Harald Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:15:38 +0200
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, erik@netscape.com
- Cc: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>, MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@INNOSOFT.COM>, ietf-charsets@ISI.EDU, murata@fxis.fujixerox.co.jp, Tatsuo_Kobayashi@justsystem.co.jp
At 14:51 24.07.98 +0900, Martin J. Duerst wrote: >What I think we should worry is whether and how UTF-16 should be used >in traditional protocol headers, based on MIME encoded words. Several >solutions are possible: > >- Discourage or disallow UTF-16 in such headers (there are other > cases, in particular Korean Email, where there are differences > between the encoding used in the header and in the body). > This is reasonable. >- Use a different specification for these headers (headers would > probably be in big-endian without a BOM, and nothing else, > bodies could tolerate little-endian and/or recommend/mandate > the BOM). The difference is justified because headers need > additional encoding/decoding anyway, and the user expectations > for their legibility are somewhat lower. This means that there are 2 almost-equal character sets. Since they're not completely equal, they have to have different names. That this seems attractive is an example of why I don't think mandating the BOM is likely to be a Good Idea for all cases of UTF-16. >- Use exactly the same specifications for both headers and bodies. This is reasonable. Harald A -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Friday, 24 July 1998 02:19:44 UTC