[rfc-i] Unicode or UTF-8
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thu Mar 29 04:18:51 PDT 2012
On 2012/03/29 0:42, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 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.
There is definitely a large number of character encodings that can be
output by various tools.
> If on the other hand they are easily avoided then we don't need to consider it.
These days, pretty much every tool that's worth something can handle and
produce UTF-8, so I agree that we don't have to consider alternatives.
> 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:
>>> 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 Saint-Andre
More information about the rfc-interest