Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 19:23:32 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Martin J. Duerst" <email@example.com> To: Keld J|rn Simonsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: John C Klensin <email@example.com>, Edward Cherlin <firstname.lastname@example.org>, 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.