On 07.09.2005 04:02, Reed Hedges wrote:
> It would be a simpler protocol to use just unicode.  

Still, you have to decide for some encoding of Unicode...

> The problem is that
> (1) it's an extra pain in the neck for developers (i.e.
> programmer-users) to worry about, especially coming from worlds like C
> and descendents where the notion of non-ascii character sets are a very
> recent addition and not a natural part of the language, and (2) if we
> add the extra "encoding" field, then we can put off actually
> transitioning to unicode (or whatever) by saying that currently the only
> valid encoding is ascii. Then later we can do unicode support, but also
> support ascii for the old fashioned/lazy/whatever.

If you want to be lazy and ASCII compatibility, use UTF-8. What good
reasons are there to allow choice of encoding at all?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

vos-d mailing list

Reply via email to