Re: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational

From: Patrik Fältström (
Date: Sun Aug 15 1999 - 11:59:09 EDT

--On sön 15 aug 1999 17.43 +0200 wrote:

> I have a problem with UTF-16 being a MIME charset, as I do not believe
> it qualifies, UTF-16 covers over at least 2 encodings:
> 1. big-endian encoding
> 2. little-endian encoding.
> To make UTF-16 a MIME charset you need to qualify which encoding
> form (big/litte endian) that you are using.

Just checking: you say that the registration of UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE as
the two registered names to be used in MIME is wrong?

I.e. from my point of view, Paul tries to register three different names
which can be used in MIME:


I need to, as area director, to know wether it is wrong or right to do this
registration. Note that the author point out that UTF-8 is the encoding to
use in Internet applications, and that these names are to be used only when
absolutely necessary. As of today, there is no way what so ever to send
UTF-16 (any variant) in electronic mail. So, I personally see this as a
continuation of the draft which Keld wrote, which include all names which
_can_ be recognized. I.e. registration of names like this doesn't say that
the name should be used -- or that the encoding should be preferred before
UTF-8 etc.

If someone of you which oppose this paper want a different introduction
which makes this point clearer, please submit text and I will be happy to
discuss this with Paul.

Also, I happen to know that Paul is on vacation which means that we can not
hear all details of why the text is as it is until he is back.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:51 EDT