Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft

Martin J. Duerst (mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch)
Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:53:41 +0200 (MET DST)


Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:53:41 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>, IETF URI list <uri@bunyip.com>
Subject: Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970415130735.22015K-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970421145201.245I-100000@enoshima>

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Chris Newman wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, John C Klensin wrote:

[About length problems with UTF-8.]

> UTF-8 requires 2 octets to encode characters from the 8859-1 set which
> normally take 1 octet.  UTF-8 requires 3 octets to encode ideographic
> characters from UCS-2 which normally require 2 octets.  So
> western Europeans take a worse storage hit from UTF-8 than ideographic
> languages do.

This is not exactly true. Western European languages contain many
characters from ASCII, and only occasionally a character that needs
two bytes in UTF-8. But anyway, I think we agree that the size
of UTF-8 is not really an issue.

Regards,	Martin.