Re: Encoding in Kannel (was: charset question (Greek))

Oded Arbel wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andreas Fink [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:23 AM
> > To: Oded Arbel
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: charset question (Greek)
> 
> > >1. Using what character set do messages arive to
> > smsbox/wapbox/mmsbox ?
> > >2. Do the boxes do recoding ?
> > >3. Using which character set do messages get sent to the bearerbox ?
> > >4. Does the bearebox do recoding ?
> > >5. Using which character set do messages arrive in the modules ?
> > >6. Should the modules do recoding (except for
> > driver-specific issues) ?
> > >7. How does the coding member of the Msg* structure relate to the
> > >character set of the message ?
> > >8. All the above questions for the MO path.
> > >9. Which encodings do Kannel need to support internally ?
> > >10. Using which encoding should keyword matching be done ?
> > >
> > >I would really like to see a clear design work on that.
> >
> >
> > I agree with you in the sense that current recoding is messy.
> > I would suggest that recoding doesnt occur at all unless its
> > necessary.
> > This means that every SMSC driver would need to be aware of all
> > coding types and recode once from source to target if needed.
> >
> > Thins like UTF16->iso->gsm should not occur as it is not "lossless".
> 
> I'd like to opt for recoding to some unicode format, as early as
> possible, do everything internally with unicode, and let the modules
> recode to what ever they thing is most efficient. we should supply some
> functions and/or hints in the msg structure to help modules determine
> which encoding would cause the least amount of data loss.
> UTF-16 or UCS2 are good for that, also UTF-8. note that UTF-16 != UCS2

I think that we should remember that XML *requires* UTF-8. Quite many
apps
are based on XML documents. If we use other Kannel internal encoding,
either
Kannel or app using XML must recode again.

Aarno