From: Mike Ayers (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 17:38:35 EST
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]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