- From: MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:08:12 +0900
- To: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
- Cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:55:46 +0200 Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > UTF-8 everywhere is a reasonable principle and much simpler to > understand and implement than any means to specify use of legacy > encoding schemes. UTF-8 has its own technical problems (the Unicode signature, representation of non-BMP characters, etc.). Moreover, people do not throw away legacy encodings but stick to them. For example, although I think that Unicode is better than Shift-JIS and I do have Unicode-aware text editors, I still use Shift-JIS, which is so convenient at present. I am not saying UTF-8 is bad. I'm just saying UTF-8 everywhere is even more unrealistic than any other options at hand. >For inbound encoding declarations, generic syntax > does not work. Whatever syntax you choose, it will look odd in many > formats and many authors won't use it anyway. Please see my mail to Martin. Cheers, -- MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2003 08:10:55 UTC