UTF-7 (was: RE: U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics)

From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Wed Mar 08 2000 - 15:41:37 EST

Jeff Moles asked:

>
> My questions are:
>
> 1) Does UTF-7 still have a place in the world?

Yes, unfortunately. It is implemented in some email software, so that
UTF-7 encoded data occasionally appears in email.

>
> 2) Is UTF-7 a suitable means of encoding and storing strings on disk (or
> other nonvolatile memory) for a system that typically would have one (or a
> small number) of languages active at any given time?

No.

>
> 3) Why would I choose to use UTF-8 or UTF-16 instead?

You should choose UTF-8 (over UTF-7) if you need a byte-oriented
encoding form. UTF-8 is widely used and is a sanctioned form of
the standard.

The question of UTF-8 versus UTF-16 depends on the details of
your implementation.

But *please* do not create more instances of UTF-7 data. UTF-7 was a
stillborn solution for a problem that has largely gone away.

--Ken

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:59 EDT