Re: [idn] URL encoding in html page

["Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>]

David Leung (Neteka Inc.) <david@neteka.com> wrote:

> More bits is good, but when we plan for things more than we need,
> then it should be considered to be a waste of resource. So why do
> we need 128bits now(i dont think the combined total of characters
> in all languages in the world would require that much, not unless
> we want to include scripts from oter planets : > ), whereas we need
> 8/16/32 bits for Unicode, so why not design a system able to accept
> ACE as a fallback and also 8/16/32 bits? If you can justify why
> designing a system that can handle ASCII as a fallback and can
> automatically support 8/16/32 bits Unicode is not a good design,
> then I think my thinking is wrong.

Is my memory faulty, or wasn't it the CJK users who complained the
loudest that UTF-8 was unfairly discriminatory because it required 3
bytes for each CJK character, and that some sort of compression (such as
now provided by Punycode) was essential to the success of IDN?

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California