Re: [idn] UNIX moving to UTF-8

[Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>]

> > > People are clearly moving to Unicode. Exactly which UTF they choose (8, 16,
> > > 32) is not as important, since they all can be converted to each other very
> > > efficiently and without loss.
> > 
> > And since an ACE is just another encoding of Unicode, you can add ACE to
> > that set.
> 
> This was malarkey the first time it was stated, and it is still malarkey.
> 
> UTF-8, UTF-16, and UTF-32 are official, standard encoding forms of the
> Unicode character encoding.
> 
> ACE is a transformation encoding syntax (TES) -- *not* an encoding form.

I didn't use the precise term "encoding form" I used the imprecise term
"encoding".  

ACE most certainly is an encoding of Unicode.  If adopted by IETF, ACE 
will also be an "official" "standard" - though not an ISO standard.  
If memory serves, neither Unicode nor UTF-8 started out in ISO either, 
so the fact that ACE didn't start there shouldn't be cause for concern.

> I'm not opposed to the ACE proposals for solving the short-term IDN
> issue, but...
> 
> UTF-8 is a general-purpose encoding form for open interchange of
> Unicode data is all kinds of contexts. It is also used as a general-purpose
> processing form in many systems.

UTF-8 certainly has wider applicability than ACE.  However ACE
is not designed to meet the constraints of *a* particular protocol,
it is designed to meet the constraints of *several* protocols that
use ASCII DNS names as protocol elements.

Keith