Markus Scherer wrote:
> of this list, only UTF-EBCDIC is a viable encoding form.
> the others are either deprecated, never made it beyond draft,
> or are unofficial discussion pieces that never made it
> anywhere (i proposed one of them :-).
Please notice that at least one of these has never even been proposed to or
discussed with anyone on heart: it went directly from its originator's
"aborted ideas" folder to David's "UTF fossils" collection.
> David Starner wrote:
> > > UTF-1: F7 64 4C
> > > UTF-7: 2B 2F 76 38 2D "+/v8-"
> > > UTF-7d5: BF FB FF
> > > UTF-8C1: BB ED DF
> > > UTF-9: 93 FD FF
> > > UTF-EBCDIC: DD 73 66 73
> > > UTF-mu(2): 9F 9B FF
> > > UCN(3): 5C 75 66 65 66 66 "\ufeff"
> > > DUCK(4): 81 FE FF
_ Marco
