[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Unicode tagging
- To: "Edmon" <edmon@neteka.com>
- Subject: Re: [idn] Unicode tagging
- From: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:21:15 -0400
- Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:27:49 -0700
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
At 17:27 15/08/00 , Edmon wrote:
> > > > machines need to know how to translate IDNs from whatever
> > > > encoding they use into unicode/10646 (for queries) and back
> > > > (for address lookups).
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is very reasonable... why then is it not a good idea to tag the
> > > encoding as we have suggested in a standard and easily recognizable way?
> >
> > if you always use unicode on the wire, there's no need for a tag.
> > systems that have to support multiple encodings (or even the
> > possibility of multiple encodings) are far more complex than
> > single-encoding systems.
> >
>
>I dont think this is totally true... there are different
>transformations of Unicode as well as different specifications 16 bit
>or 32 bit.
I must be confused, but I thought we'd already settled on using
ISO-10646 and using the UTF-8 encoding on the wire, so those
other specs and variations are irrelevant at this point, right ?
Ran