Re: [tlug] UTF-8 for single-byte character sets

["Jonathan Q" <jq@example.com>]

On 1/15/2003, "Ulrich Plate" <plate@example.com> wrote:


>Remember the discussion we had when Jonathan triggered the GnuPG craze
>her on the list? The general take on things back then was: "I don't
>downgrade my MUA just because yours can't read what I'm sending", and at
>the time everybody seemed to hop along and agree with that statement

The exact statement/sentiment/idea that was generally agreed to was more
exactly "I won't downgrade my MUA just because yours can't read the
*RFC-compliant" stuff I'm sending."
If I was sending stuff that your MUA couldn't read b/c mine was creating
non-RFC-compliant crap, I would want the author of my MUA to fix it.  If,
after a reasonable amount of time it was not fixed, I would have to look
into changings MUAs.

As far as where I stand on the Unicode issue, I tend mostly to agree that
there isn't much point in using it for a single language, especially when
so many people will have problems reading it.  Unicode is becoming popular
for writing in Vietnamese, though, and it's not a bad idea there.  There
are several standards for writing in Vietnamese (VISCII, TVCN, VIQR, am I
missing any?), and the mess can be clarified by everyone moving toward
UTF-8.

Jonathan