- From: Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 18:05:13 -0500
- To: www-international@w3.org
- Cc: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
À 02:19 07-12-96 -0600, Klaus Weide a écrit : >On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Chris Lilley wrote: >> UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8 does not appear to be registered; although RFC 1641 >> postulates it as a theoretical entity, RFC 2044 (not yet diffused to all >> mirrors) specified UTF-8. > >It was there, until around the time when RFC 2044 got published. >At that point UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8 disappeared without any trace from >the registry, and UTF-8 appeared instead. This is wrong, "UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8" was never in the IANA registry, which is the reason I wrote up RFC 2044 in the first place: to get UTF-8 registered as a legitimate charset. >"UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8" had been around for a while, and there are a >number of Web pages that use this string for labelling the document's >charset. Without guidance in the form of a proper registration, it is not surprising that people have made the analogy between "UNICODE-1-1-UTF-7" (which has been registered long ago) and "UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8" (non-existent). The choice between "UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8" and "UTF-8" has been debated at length on the ISO10646 and Unicode lists, with the result that we have now: "UTF-8". The wise implementer, however, would be well advised to support the longer tag as an ad hoc alias. >And note that RFC 2044 >has just "Informational" status. Which is the correct status for a document supporting a charset registration. The authoritative references for the definition of the encoding are given in the RFC, and the IANA registry is authoritative regarding the charset tag. The tag suggested in the RFC is only that, a suggestion, but one that IANA has chosen to take in that particular case. -- François Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com> Alis Technologies Inc., Montréal Tél : +1 (514) 747-2547 Fax : +1 (514) 747-2561
Received on Monday, 9 December 1996 18:10:46 UTC