Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTF-18
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Sorry, but all the comments are divergent. Any editor can still carry out their preference, of course. -Splashtalk 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] UTF-9 and UTF-18
No reason to confuse our readers with first of april jokes. See April 1st RFC. Delete, no redirect. --Pjacobi 08:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to April 1st RFC to stop it being recreated. sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- comment whilst these are unlikely to gain wide use they are perfectly workable transformation formats for such systems. Plugwash 15:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm the creator of this article. I saw that the RFC was created on an April 1, but it wasn't clear to me that it was one of the April 1st RFCs released for humorous purposes. It seems to be a legitimate Unicode encoding for nontet-based systems. If I'm wrong, then I agree that it can be redirected to April 1st RFC, but otherwise, there's no harm in keeping it as-is. —Psychonaut 15:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- It doesn't contain the care that the other UTFs do, supporting only the 4 planes that are currently in use (as is done in UTF-18) seems like something that no serious unicode implementer would ever accept and could have easilly been worked arround by allowing UTF-16 surrogates for those ranges. UTF-9 isn't exactly well designed either as it does not allow simple searching to be used safely.
Sure this isn't as outlandish as mplamps but i still don't think its serious.
P.S. are entries covering multiple pages allowed on AFD or do we have to keep writing in duplicate? Plugwash 16:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)- If it makes sense to discuss two or more articles together, then by all means list them together - if discussion of the two articles diverges, it's easier to split the discussion than it is to merge it. (Having said that, this should serve as a cautionary tale...) sjorford #£@%&$?! 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ok i've merged the discussions (which up until now were duplicates anyway).
- It doesn't contain the care that the other UTFs do, supporting only the 4 planes that are currently in use (as is done in UTF-18) seems like something that no serious unicode implementer would ever accept and could have easilly been worked arround by allowing UTF-16 surrogates for those ranges. UTF-9 isn't exactly well designed either as it does not allow simple searching to be used safely.
- Merge UTF-9 and UTF-16 into a single article describing the encoding methods and pointing out thier flaws. Plugwash 14:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
