Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft

Martin J. Duerst (mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch)
Fri, 25 Apr 1997 19:23:32 +0200 (MET DST)


Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 19:23:32 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
To: Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld@dkuug.dk>
Cc: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>, Edward Cherlin <cherlin@newbie.net>,
Subject: Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft
In-Reply-To: <199704251215.OAA17664@dkuug.dk>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970425192133.245x-100000@enoshima>

On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Keld J|rn Simonsen wrote:

> Well, there is some kind of compression in 10646, as the BMP is
> designed to contain the most frequently used characters in the world,
> and characters outside BMP are thus overall meant to be very rarely used
> Thus UTF-8 is still an economical encoding of 10646. The major advantage
> of UTF-8 is that it is maintaining the ISO 646 (ASCII) encoding and
> the control characters in C0 and C1, and thus can provide a straight-
> forward migration path for ISO 646 supporting systems.

Very much agree with most. But please be careful. C1 is not protected
by UTF-8. This may be a problem for some strictly 646-based systems,
but not for the Internet, where C1 never has played a big role.

Regards,	Martin.