On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:18:47 -0600
"David Barr" <barr(_at_)visi(_dot_)com> wrote:
[ Sigh. Ignore my previous email correcting my non-error. I've been at my
computer too long today and my eyes are going batty. ]
the second does not follow from the first. or more
specifically, just because someone puts untagged 8bit
characters in a message header does not mean that that person
would support a standard of using utf-8 (or any other
representation other than the one he happened to be using) in
the message header.
However, client support for (and active use of) UTF-8 is far more > pervasive
than any of the other proposed encoding schemes.
not sure about that - after all, the people using other encoding
schemes are presumably finding them satisfactory in their limited
circumstances. however I think we'd agree that utf-8 is by far the
most widely supported (by existing user agents) "universal" encoding
scheme.
--
Keith Moore http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
27 February 1933 11 September 2001