[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.

Regards,    Martin.


> 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/
>>
>>
>
>
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list