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

From: unknown charset <yergeau@ALIS.COM>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:26:13 -0500
To: "'Ira Mcdonald'" <imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com>, ietf-charsets@iana.org
Message-id: <000401bf47d1$81f49510$7690dfa0@fyergeau2.intra.alis.com>

> De: Ira Mcdonald [mailto:imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com]
> Date: mercredi 15 décembre 1999 23:32
>
> 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.

I wouldn't really object to Informative instead of PS, but would like to
hear more about that "long list of drawbacks".  My own list is rather short
and parts of it are related to C string and ASCII-thinking and will
disappear over time. I also have a (short) list of advantages.

--
François Yergeau

Received on Thursday, 16 December 1999 09:31:31 UTC