Re: UTF-8 reg tags...

From: Francois Yergeau (
Date: Wed Sep 11 1996 - 23:05:05 EDT

À 09:44 11-09-96 -0400, Glenn Adams a écrit :
>I believe that moving ahead with a bare "UTF-8" is an extremely
>bad idea. To stay consistent with previous tags, you should
>have specified:
> or
> ISO-10646-UTF-8 (this is ambiguous regarding repertoire)
>As the author of the I-D, you can revoke it prior to it being published
>as an RFC. I would request that you do so immediately before it goes

Before I do that, I would like to see a little more argumentation, beyond
the naked statement that it is "an extremely bad idea". The consistency
argument seems pretty weak to me, in the face of a consensus for "UTF-8"
alone reached after a quite lengthy discussion on the ISO10646 list,
involving a number of knowledgeable people .

Has the UTC considered the question for more than a few minutes, or has it
simply found it expedient to follow the pattern? Has a case been made for
the need of a version number in the MIME tag(s)? Is it based on the change
to the Korean encoding? If so, does the UTC consider this incompatible
change to be a serious problem in practice?


François Yergeau <>
Alis Technologies Inc., Montréal
Tél : +1 (514) 747-2547
Fax : +1 (514) 747-2561

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT