From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 19:41:53 EST
> I don't object proposals to define new "UTF-*" forms,
> but this should still be
> proposals for an otherwise distinctly named encoding form, chosen by the
> proposal author out of the "UTF-*" naming space.
The UTC clearly does object to proposals to define "new 'UTF-*' forms".
But if what you mean by "out of the 'UTF-*' naming space" is that
people coming up with new bit twiddles on characters should avoid
calling them UTF-whatever, and use names such as, for example,
"Marc Crispin 9-Bit Unicode Twiddle" (MC9BUT) or whatever, then I
think we are in agreement.
> I have seen several other informal proposals for "UTF-*" forms/schemes.
> All this is just confusive, and their authors should imagine their own names
> for reference. What do you think of this idea?
It is, indeed, "confusive". Some of us have deliberately contributed
to the confusion with tongue-in-cheek additions. See my own
UTF-17 (draft-whistler-utf17-00.txt). I would not object if
henceforward people referred to that as KW-UTF-17, to avoid
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 20:21:23 EST