Re: [apps-discuss] Documenting UTF-1 as Historic

I agree with what others have said, and will stay short (and 
unfortunately a bit blunt):

UTF-1, like most UTF-X (where X isn't 8/16/32, and maybe also 7) are 
totally irrelevant. Spending time on such stuff is just wasteful. The 
'historic' description is to relabel stuff that was in an RFC without a 
'historic' label. That doesn't apply to UTF-1. UTF-1 is in the IANA 
charset registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets), but 
so are several others that are completely useless, too. Enough said.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2011/06/11 0:34, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There are a number of RFCs defining transformation formats of ISO
> 10646/Unicode - various UTFs. I mean RFC 3629 (UTF-8), RFC 2152 (UTF-7),
> RFC 2781 (UTF-16) and others. However, I've noticed UTF-1 isn't properly
> documented (or, at least, there is no formal record of it). However,
> since UTF-1 has never been widely used, I suppose it could be formally
> documented in Historic RFC, taking
> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/ISO-IR/178.pdf as a basis. Any thoughts on
> this?
>
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>