Re: UTF-7 - is it dead?

From: Markus Scherer (markus.icu@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 02 2006 - 16:12:17 CDT

  • Next message: Theodore H. Smith: "Re: UTF-8 can be used for more than it is given credit ( Re: UTF-7 - is it dead? )"

    If you can verify that your email path is 8-bit-clean, you can use
    UTF-8 directly. Otherwise, UTF-7 is a bit more compact than
    UTF-8+base64.

    For storage of text other than email, UTF-8 is preferred.

    For processing, most Unicode-aware software uses UTF-16, most
    squeeze-Unicode-into-char* software uses UTF-8, and occasionally
    UTF-32 is worth the bandwidth penalty.

    On 6/2/06, Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com> wrote:
    > ... you have to read it using a
    > browser that supports UTF-7! Firefox supports it but IE 6.0 does not.

    Yes it does, I just tried it. I copied & saved the sample text from
    appendix A from RFC 2152 as a .txt file and viewed it with IE 6, Opera
    8.54, and Firefox 1.5. With IE, I selected View/Encoding/Auto-Select.
    With the others, I chose UTF-7 explicitly.

    UTF-7 is Windows code page 65000, if I remember correctly. One of the
    long-supported ones. UTF-8 is 65001.

    markus 

    -- 
Opinions expressed here may not reflect my company's positions unless
otherwise noted.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 02 2006 - 16:29:49 CDT