Re: [idn] URL encoding in html page

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

I meant exactly what I said: ACE is a "downgrade" for machine read.
Downgrade here have the same meaning as base64/qp is used to "downgrade"
mail when 8BITMIME is not supported. It does not mean it is better or worst.

UTF-8 is another encoding of Unicode and plainly just UTF-8. I did not make
any comment to say UTF-8 is better or worst. You read too much.

I didnt say that "UTF-128" is better than "UTF-8" is better than ACE either.
UTF-128 is just plainly UTF-128. You jumped too quickly into conclusion.

If we going to have a flag to change everything to 8-bit clean, why stop at
8-bit? 8-bit does not even have the basic bit to support ISO10646. You need
some encoding mechanism to translate ISO10646 to 8-bit, aka, UTF-8.

So why not make all 128bit (or more) clean?

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>
To: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>; "David Leung (Neteka Inc.)"
<david@neteka.com>; "IETF idn working group" <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] URL encoding in html page


> Hi James,
> I am sorry if I offended you in any way shape or form with my little
playful
> note.
> However, please explain further your intentions on the comments if not
that
> you agree ACE is downgrade, UTF8 is a slight upgrade and your UTF128 is a
> great upgrade?
> Edmon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
> > But I agree that ACE is one form of "downgrading" but the target is for
> > machine readability, not human.
> >
> > My take? If it were up to me, why stick to UTF-8? I'll say lets do one
> > single upgrade to 128bit, lets called it UTF-128, just in case.
> >
> > -James Seng
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>