I just realised what my real problems with this were; ambiguity and poltics.
UTF-8S is just too close to UTF-8; I think I'd be happy enough
with just a name change to say:
UTF-16-8 and UTF-16-32
They seem to me to express the 'bastard half-breed' feeling of the
proposals and if combined with something to the effect that they
should never be used without an explicit demand _I'd_ see it just
as a codification of existing practice.
--
Rob. (Robert de Bath <robert$ @ debath.co.uk>)
<http://www.cix.co.uk/~mayday>
OracleServer: Are you really, really, really, sure you don't want UTF-8?
Client: YES! YES! YES! I REALLY do want UTF-16-8, really! NOW! Please!
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
