[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] URL encoding in html page
> David Leung (Neteka Inc.) <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > More bits is good, but when we plan for things more than we need,
> > then it should be considered to be a waste of resource. So why do
> > we need 128bits now(i dont think the combined total of characters
> > in all languages in the world would require that much, not unless
> > we want to include scripts from oter planets : > ), whereas we need
> > 8/16/32 bits for Unicode, so why not design a system able to accept
> > ACE as a fallback and also 8/16/32 bits? If you can justify why
> > designing a system that can handle ASCII as a fallback and can
> > automatically support 8/16/32 bits Unicode is not a good design,
> > then I think my thinking is wrong.
> Is my memory faulty, or wasn't it the CJK users who complained the
> loudest that UTF-8 was unfairly discriminatory because it required 3
> bytes for each CJK character, and that some sort of compression (such as
> now provided by Punycode) was essential to the success of IDN?
Dont judge all CJK users to be the same person, I guess you really have
faulty memory or even memory leak, that wasnt me!! Also dont view all CJK
people to be the same group, this maybe kind of discrimination?!
The guy who said that was Soobok Lee(he is Korean and I am Chinese) or
someone else!! I am the one that keep saying UTF8 or 16 bit is good and ACE
should only be transitional...!!
Chief Technology Officer
T: (416) 971-4302