Re: First strawman for UTF-8 headers proposal

At 11:52 04/01/03 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:

 > Pete Resnik said:

>>If we're talking about "trivial changes to existing code", then yes, the 
>>change is trivial: You add 128-255 to comment, atom, and quoted-string 
>>(or more specifically in 2822, atext, ctext, dtext, qtext, and text) and 
>>you're done. You can still treat the field contents as octets. And in 
>>fact, if your code is just looking for specials and has an 'else' clause 
>>for all the other octets, it might need no coding changes at all.
>
>yes, this will work in some cases, though you might get bitten if some 
>kinds of atoms (or atext, whatever) can contain utf-8 and other kinds 
>cannot.  it even appears to work for gb18030.

No, it does not at all work for gb18030. GB uses virtually all of the
US-ASCII bytes not only for denoting US-ASCII characters, but also in
second (or fourth) position of when encoding other characters.
See e.g. the section "Structure" in
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/unicode/library/u-china.html?dwzone=un 
icode

Regards,    Martin.