Re: UTF-8 over RFC 2047 (Re: Call for Usefor to recharter)

[Jean-Marc Desperrier <jean-marc.desperrier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave Crocker a écrit:
> [...] (No, folks, please don't correct me it
> is any other number over 16.)

It's now 0x10FFFF.

> Cramming those bits into a 7-bit environment is just one more cramming
> effort.  It stands equal to the others as an alternative that has benefits
> and detriments.

No, because the only standardised 7-bit encoding for unicode is UTF-7 
that has so many drawbacks it's strongly deprecated.

> If you have a text editor, you can view the 7-bit encoding.  The fact that
> it is "ugly", therefore is actually a feature, not a bug.

Don't worry, the "pretty" aspect of UTF-8 is not that, it's truly that 
it's already implemented in most any client that is able to support more 
than one encoding (many more than the one that would support UTF-16).
If it were not, a new seven bit encoding would be better.