Eric, Thanks for the good pointer.
> Why not use Unicode UCS-2 with UTF-8 encoding? > http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2279.txt > > UTF-8 encoding would be backwards-compatible with ASCII in > many (most?) > cases for syslog. I think there is one issue with UTF-8, that is it requires 8-BIT bytes. Syslog allows only 7 bit transport. Fortunately, there is UTF-7 available (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2152.txt) which encodes in plain 7 bit. I was thinking base64 because it would not only allow unicode data to travel. E.g. in Japan, a lot of data is encoded not in Unicode but in traditional encodings, like JIS and EUC. If we use a Unicode-only encoding, that would not be possible. On the other hand, UTF-7 has the beauty that almost all plain US ANSI characters can be transmitted without any encoding. In contrast to base 64 this means the message is human readable even on the wire. I will note both choices down for now ;) Rainer
