In <15225657263(_dot_)20030109074805(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> Dave Crocker
<dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles> There are some practical superiorities. It transports well over many
Charles> Internet protocols, because it does not do nasty thungs with CR, LF
and
Charles> NUL. It has the _whole_ of ASCII as a strict subset (which is not
true of
Charles> UTF-7).
Usually, the "plays well with other protocols" argument is given for use of
netAscii, which is a subset of 7-bit. I have not seen it used for 8-bit
before.
It plays well with NNTP, and it plays well in the bodies of articles in
SMTP where 8BITMIME is supported. I.e. you can use CTE 8bit where the
charset is UTF-8 where you could not use it if the charset was UTF-16.
Charles> But UTF-8 would be a pain for internal use in Operating systems,
I thought we were talking about an exchange protocol, not o/s data storage.
Sure. I was just pointing out that there were other places (not
tnansmission) where UTF-16 was more suitable than UTF-8.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5