[rfc-i] Unicode or UTF-8

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Wed Mar 28 08:42:51 PDT 2012


I would rather have one place that we need to deploy tools rather than
have to do so everywhere.

If these are character sets that are routinely emitted by a sizeable
number of authoring tools then we should support them as input.

If on the other hand they are easily avoided then we don't need to consider it.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> On 3/28/12 5:21 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Though I suggest that any upload tool be lenient in what it accepts
>> and conservative in what it emits. i.e. instead of rejecting non-UTF8
>> encoding outright, convert them to canonical form.
>
> So a document encoded with UTF-16 or ISO/IEC 8859-1 or Shift_JIS or some
> other encoding would be automatically converted to UTF-8? I'd sure
> rather reject such contributions.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list