I meant exactly what I said: ACE is a "downgrade" for machine read. Downgrade here have the same meaning as base64/qp is used to "downgrade" mail when 8BITMIME is not supported. It does not mean it is better or worst.
UTF-8 is another encoding of Unicode and plainly just UTF-8. I did not make any comment to say UTF-8 is better or worst. You read too much. I didnt say that "UTF-128" is better than "UTF-8" is better than ACE either. UTF-128 is just plainly UTF-128. You jumped too quickly into conclusion. If we going to have a flag to change everything to 8-bit clean, why stop at 8-bit? 8-bit does not even have the basic bit to support ISO10646. You need some encoding mechanism to translate ISO10646 to 8-bit, aka, UTF-8. So why not make all 128bit (or more) clean? -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmon Chung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Seng/Personal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "David Leung (Neteka Inc.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF idn working group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [idn] URL encoding in html page > Hi James, > I am sorry if I offended you in any way shape or form with my little playful > note. > However, please explain further your intentions on the comments if not that > you agree ACE is downgrade, UTF8 is a slight upgrade and your UTF128 is a > great upgrade? > Edmon > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Seng/Personal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > But I agree that ACE is one form of "downgrading" but the target is for > > machine readability, not human. > > > > My take? If it were up to me, why stick to UTF-8? I'll say lets do one > > single upgrade to 128bit, lets called it UTF-128, just in case. > > > > -James Seng > > > > > > > > >
