Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <200301150254(_dot_)h0F2sPW22508(_at_)panix5(_dot_)panix(_dot_)com> Seth Breidbart
<sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> writes:
My take is that some people want/need to send 8-bit, so if the
standard says "don't" they ignore it (and find that it works,
mostly). If the standard says "Here's how to do it properly" most of
them will be perfectly happy doing it that way.
Exactly so. If the standard stays silent, the present chaos will surely
increase. If it provides an approved way to do it, then there is at least
the possibility that people will move over to that way.
I am still worried that the Chinese will stick with GB18030, though, and
there is no clean solution to that in sight.
There is a clean solution:
"Here's how to do it properly: use RFCs 2047 / 2231." That (a) is
backwards compatible, (b) is consistent with Best Current Practice
(RFC 2277), (c) is consistent with the Internet Architecture (RFC
1958), (d) is compatible with RFCs 822, 2822 and the MIME RFCs, and
(e) is inclusive (GB18030 users are not ostracized). Raw untagged
utf-8 does not posess those characteristics.