Re: utf8/legacy versioning

Moreover,

 if "utf-8" is to be a charset, it should have defined the specific set of characters and contains 
versioning tags.

 I suggest:  "utf-8" is an encoding form for UCS. "utf8-8-3.1" and "utf-8-3.2" are charsets names which are
snapshots of UCS with specified encoding form utf-8. This taxonomy would make this situation clear.
Do not forget the set of characters of vague "utf-8" is not fixed from its definition.


 Soobok Lee

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Soobok Lee" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] utf8/legacy versioning


> 
> Thanks for your correction. UTF-8 (not utf8) is in that list.
> 
> But, UTF-8 is a character encoding form of UCS and does not specify the specific set of supported characters 
> in the numerous versions of UCS.   That is the point where utf-8 and iso8859-1/ksc_5601_1987 differ.
> I.e., UTF-8 defines encoding schemes over UCS which has been an open set and will remains as an open set.
> 
> UTF-8 , from its definition, cannot have versioing suffices, like "utf-8-3.2" or "utf-8-3.1".
> That's why "utf-8" should not be regardsed as a "genuine" charset, IMO.
> 
> Correct me if i am wrong at some points. Thanks.
> 
> Soobok Lee
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <[email protected]>
> To: "Soobok Lee" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [idn] utf8/legacy versioning
> 
> 
> > At 10:11 AM +0900 6/3/02, Soobok Lee wrote:
> > >Moreover, It does not have "utf8" charset entry, because "utf8" is 
> > >just one of the encodings of the Universal
> > >Character Set, not an independent charset plus encoding like "ks_c_5601-1987".
> > 
> > Both your statement and your reasoning are wrong. UTF-8 has been a 
> > registered charset since RFC 2279 was issued.
> > 
> > --Paul Hoffman, Director
> > --Internet Mail Consortium
>