Lets be realistic: 1. RFC2277 is a result of IAB Character Workshop in March 1996.
2. RFC2277 is an BCP, not Standard Track. 3. RFC2277 say "Names are a problem, because people feel strongly about them, many of them are mostly for local usage, and all of them tend to leak out of the local context at times. RFC 1958 [RFC 1958] recommends US-ASCII for all globally visible names. This document does not mandate a policy on name internationalization, but requires that all protocols describe whether names are internationalized or US-ASCII." Note: I am not saying we reject UTF-8. You need better technical justification then to just say "it is obvious" or "it is stated in RFC2277". -James Seng > > The obvious choice for Internet protocols is UTF-8. See RFC 2277. > > Systems that use 16-bit encodings internally, such as Windows, handle > > UTF-8 conversions at the boundary between the system and the network. > > > > What's the problem? > > Totally agree, I thought the IETF has decided on using UTF8 on all protocol. > So I dont understand why someone is saying me trying to predict the future > that all application and protocol should move towards the use of UTF8. It > seems like we(UTF8 supporters) are taking the role of Mark Davis, trying to > promote the use of Unicode : ) > > David Leung > > > >
