Ed Hart wrote:
>With major workstation applications that support Unicode (ISO/IEC
>10646-1:1993, UCS-2) due next year, I would question the value of
>standardizing another part of ISO/IEC 8859 and your ability to get
>manufacturers to support it before 1998. By that time, you will see
>Unicode/10646 support available in more and more products.
I agree. Even if manufacturers do, will users want to convert twice, once to
an interim improved 8859 and then to 10646? These conversions can be quite
I propose instead a new UTF scheme, which I will call UTF-256:
The idea is that each message first defines a mapping from codes 0 to 255 into
UCS, then proceeds to use 8 bit codes for the content.
The header, which defines the mapping, will be in UTF-7. If you do not want
to use C1, just don't define any mapping from that zone.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT