メールのエンコードについて、これを見つけました。
具体的に役に立たないと思いますが、情報として…
エラリー
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Markus Scherer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2006年3月29日 9:53:21:JST
To: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: UTF-7 - I'm not really smarter
On 3/28/06, Dean Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's also (unfortunately) quite popular with a lot of email
servers. I don't
really know why, because UTF-8 + quoted-printable would have been
just
almost as efficient, and you wouldn't need some custom encoder/
decoder
that's almost-but-not-quite Base64 encoding...
Let's count:
For example, a common Chinese character (from the BMP Unihan block)
takes the following number of bytes:
UTF-16: 2
UTF-16+base64: 2.67
UTF-7: 2.67 (plus a little overhead, less for longer runs of non-
ASCII chars)
UTF-8: 3
UTF-8+base64: 4
UTF-8+quoted-printable: 9
For Latin (non-ASCII), Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew the numbers are
UTF-16: 2
UTF-16+base64: 2.67
UTF-7: 2.67 (plus a little overhead...)
UTF-8: 2
UTF-8+base64: 2.67
UTF-8+quoted-printable: 6
In other words, for email, if you don't want to trust that the whole
network is 8BIT-safe, UTF-7 is reasonably efficient.
markus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
