--k4f25fnPtRuIRUb3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 07:39:52AM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>=20
> On Nov 7, 2004, at 5:27 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
>=20
> >	will you comment on it to authors of the offending internet draft?
> >	from the current situation, using UTF16-LE (just like MS) might be an
> >	mistake.  the document is vague so we don't know what is the right
> >	thing to do.
>=20
> Well... I guarantee you that Microsoft is not going to change their=20
> implementation.  The authors originally intended to document what=20
> Microsoft had implemented, and if we want to interoperate with Windows,=
=20
> then we are going to have to change.

Perhaps then an update RFC to indciate that they really really meant=20
UTF16-LE?

I think both you and Itojun are right. You're right that UTF-16LE is what
was intended (given they wanted to duplicate what Microsoft was doing),
and Itojun's right that the spec is vague and does not promote
interoperability.

:-)

Take care,

Bill

--k4f25fnPtRuIRUb3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFBj8T5Wz+3JHUci9cRApyAAJ9bJZQjRGYcxw0+y7WGARO2ny3HGgCdHJND
qQ8xY40q4B5JklPaequRoAI=
=88is
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--k4f25fnPtRuIRUb3--