From: Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
Date: Wed Mar 05 2003 - 22:34:47 CST
J B Moreno <planb@newsreaders.com> writes:
> On 3/5/03 5:16 PM, Russ Allbery at <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> That 15% is not using UTF-8.
>> Both solutions ignore (read: do not standardize the current practices
>> of) that 15%. No one is proposing making that 15% happy, including
>> you. So this is a straw man.
> It's a lot closer to their current practice than 2047 is,
No. It's not. This is flatly, completely untrue.
UTF-8 requires that they completely change character sets, possibly give
up the idea of a standard character width, figure out how to use a Unicode
font, or at the least link with full-blown character set conversion
software.
RFC 2047 just requires that they put an encoding and decoding step in
front of their existing practice, plus the decoding part and possibly the
encoding part is generally already done in the software that they're using
right now.
-- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>