as far as i remember discussions here on the list, there is one standard that
uses utf-7 in some protocol fields (imap??).
otherwise, utf-7 is dead, dead, dead, and rest in peace.
it is unnecessary and clumsy, and i hope that it does _not_ find its way into
any more implementations.
it is deprecated, too - see unicode.org and imc.org.
one of the big drawbacks is that a single character gets a number of different
encodings depending on the context. if you need a mail-safe encoding, have a
look at utf-8 - or base64, if you expect to encounter medieval mail gateways.
Markus Scherer IBM Cupertino, CA +1 408 777 5860 Fax ..5891 firstname.lastname@example.org
Robert Brady <email@example.com> on 99-09-27 07:54:24
To: "Unicode List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
cc: Unicode List <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: UTF-7
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com wrote:
> Just a curiosity: is UTF-7 still alive? (My impression is that it was born
> dead but, as usual, I am probably wrong).
I've had reports of UTF-7 sighted on Usenet recently. I plan to add UTF-7
support to glibc's iconv as soon as I get the time.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:53 EDT