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

[Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:18:47 -0600
"David Barr" <barr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> [ Sigh.  Ignore my previous email correcting my non-error.  I've been at my
> computer too long today and my eyes are going batty. ]
> 
> > the second does not follow from the first.  or more 
> > specifically, just because someone puts untagged 8bit 
> > characters in a message header does not mean that that person 
> > would support a standard of using utf-8 (or any other 
> > representation other than the one he happened to be using) in 
> > the message header.
> 
> However, client support for (and active use of) UTF-8 is far more > pervasive than any of the other proposed encoding schemes.

not sure about that - after all, the people using other encoding
schemes are presumably finding them satisfactory in their limited 
circumstances.  however I think we'd agree that utf-8 is by far the
most widely supported (by existing user agents) "universal" encoding
scheme.

--
Keith Moore                              http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
27 February 1933                                     11 September 2001