Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft

John C Klensin (
Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:48:08 -0400 (EDT)

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:48:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU,,
        Dan Oscarsson <>
Message-Id: <>

On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:35:16 +0200 wrote:

> Factoid:
> UTF-8 is not user-friendly in 8859-1; the standard coding octets for
> putting the 8859-1 charset into UTF-8 insert one character in front of
> each character, and also change the last character for the 4 uppermost
> columns of the 8859-1 character table.

My apologies.  I should have said something more like "more 
user-friendly for Latin-1 than it is for upper-end 
ideographic characters, where it deteriorates even more 
severely :-(

Given the bad behavior *even* for 8859-1, could someone 
please remind me why we are pushing the thing rather than a 
straight 16 or 32-bit encoding with compression if needed?  
(Please, that is a rhetorical question only -- we don't 
need another flaming chain on the subject).