Re: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational

From: Daniel Biddle (deltab@ps.cus.umist.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 16 1999 - 11:00:12 EDT

Next message: peter_constable@sil.org: "behaviour of ZWNBSP (was Re: Unicode and Kermit)"
Previous message: keld@dkuug.dk: "Re: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational"
Maybe in reply to: The IESG: "Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational"
Next in thread: Marion Gunn: "Re: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> fwiw I fully agree with Markus; I can't see any sense in defining
> two ways, plus a third ambiguous way, of doing the same thing,
> especially when it's not something we want people to do anyway.

Agreed. How about:

UTF-16
UTF-16-swapped

Two ways, but one is obviously preferred over the other.

-- 
Daniel Biddle

Next message: peter_constable@sil.org: "behaviour of ZWNBSP (was Re: Unicode and Kermit)"
Previous message: keld@dkuug.dk: "Re: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational"
Maybe in reply to: The IESG: "Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational"
Next in thread: Marion Gunn: "Re: Last Call: UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646 to Informational"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:51 EDT