ibm does not back utf-8m as a separate encoding.
as the technical report states,
"Neither UTF-EBCDIC nor its intermediate form called UTF-8-Mod in this technical
report, are intended to be used in open interchange environments. It is useful
in homogeneous EBCDIC systems and networks."
"The UTF-8-Mod transformation is intended to be used only as an intermediate
step in arriving at UTF-EBCDIC. It is not intended to be used elsewhere."
however, if you want to have yet another encoding for unicode, feel free to
suggest it or something else as such.
from my own experience with that endeavour, you have about a 0.1% chance that
the iso and unicode community will like it, mostly because we already have a
fair number of encodings of the same character set, which does not help with
unicode's popularity and adoption.
on that note, "utf-7d5" may be another nice format, but is nothing official.
the only encodings that unicode endorses are utf-8 and utf-16, and possibly in
the future utf-32 - and utf-ebcdic for native ebcdic systems.
Joerg Knappen <KNAPPEN@alpha.ntp.springer.de> on 99-05-26 04:55:08
To: Unicode List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: UTF-7 is dead
There are some proposals, however:
Unicode technical report No. 16 (http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr16/)
contains a proposal backed by IBM for uft-8m without C1 controls and
utf-8-ebcdic for passing utf-8m octetts thru EBCDIC hosts.
There is also utf-7d5 (see: http://vzdmzi.zdv.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/jk009.html
and http://vzdmzj.zdv.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/jk010.html). The main difference
is, that utf-7d5 only aims at ucs-2, while utf-8m covers full ucs-4 (31bit).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:46 EDT