RE: Unicode forms for internal storage - BOCU-1 speed

From: Mike Ayers (
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 17:38:35 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Unicode forms for internal storage - BOCU-1 speed"

    > From: []On
    > Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
    > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:49 PM

    > I think then that
    > "UTF-9" is a bad
    > acronym to refer to a specific unapproved (not-standard)
    > encoding form, and
    > its use in this mailing list is just adding more confusion
    > because there's
    > no such "UTF-9" standard until it is documented by a
    > IETF/ISO/IEC 10646 RFC
    > or by Unicode.

            Nobody called it a standard. The author called it "UTF-9".
    Therefore we call it the same thing so anyone knows what we're talking
    about. It may not be ideal, but it's intelligible. Why should anyone
    assume that something is an international standard just because its name
    starts with "UTF-"?

    (out of order)
    > We have already suffered in the past of the confusion caused
    > by various
    > interpretation of "UTF-8" (until CESU-8 was documented,

            So it's documented, big deal. It's still UTF-8 of UTF-16, Oracle
    still calls it "UTF8", I still call it "WTF-8", and people are still
    confused, albeit officially confused.

            It would be nice to have some way of tracing the specification for
    an encoding scheme based on its name, just not possible.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 19:22:33 EST