Re: Sync/Seek-robust UTF-7

2002-06-18 Thread Asmus Freytag
At 08:16 PM 6/18/02 -0700, Rick McGowan wrote: >At least please don't start mentioning your proprietary bit-twiddles in >public with the "UTF" acronym anywhere nearby. Rick is right - while the letters "UTF" are not a formal trademark, they should be treated by convention as if they were: "UTF"

Re: Sync/Seek-robust UTF-7

2002-06-18 Thread David Starner
At 08:16 PM 6/18/02 -0700, you wrote: >Yuck. You should be severely reprimanded for even considering to develop >yet another one of these beasts. > >No more UTFs! > >At least please don't start mentioning your proprietary bit-twiddles in >public with the "UTF" acronym anywhere nearby. Geez, man,

Re: Sync/Seek-robust UTF-7

2002-06-18 Thread Doug Ewell
Rick McGowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> exclaimed: > No more UTFs! > > At least please don't start mentioning your proprietary bit-twiddles in > public with the "UTF" acronym anywhere nearby. I suppose the "U" might make people think these experimental thingies have some official status with Unicode.

Re: Sync/Seek-robust UTF-7

2002-06-18 Thread Rick McGowan
David Starner wrote: > ... I've been working on my own UTF, privately dubbed > ISO-2022-UTF. It does end up mapping 96-character planes to > G0, but ISO-2022-JP-3 does it, and that's a MIME-legal charset. Yuck. You should be severely reprimanded for even considering to develop yet another one

Re: Sync/Seek-robust UTF-7

2002-06-18 Thread Doug Ewell
Shlomi Tal wrote, and Markus Scherer responded, regarding Shlomi's experimental UTF. Please note, before anyone gets the wrong idea, that these experimental UTFs are *not* intended as candidates to replace the official ones. As far as I am concerned, they are for fun. Not all are "jokes" in t

Re: Sync/Seek-robust UTF-7

2002-06-18 Thread David Starner
At 10:21 AM 6/18/02 +, Shlomi Tal wrote: >Stateful, yes... fragile, no! Any relevance, or is this just an amusing experiment to >be kept among geeks privately? There's a huge number of features to be traded off when making a UTF: complexity, encoding/decoding speed, uniqueness, statefulness

Re: Sync/Seek-robust UTF-7

2002-06-18 Thread Markus Scherer
Shlomi Tal wrote: > If you think 7-bit issues are totally obsolete, then sorry for bothering... Personally, I think they are, but I do find encoding schemes entertaining :-) > UTF-7 is both stateful and fragile. Stateful it has to be, because any Fragile. You assume lossy transport instead

Sync/Seek-robust UTF-7

2002-06-18 Thread Shlomi Tal
If you think 7-bit issues are totally obsolete, then sorry for bothering... UTF-7 is both stateful and fragile. Stateful it has to be, because any attemp to encode a large charset AND maintain compatibility to ASCII has to be stateful. However, it is also fragile in that there is no self-sync o