RFC 4042: UTF-9 and UTF-18 Efficient Transformation Formats of Unicode
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
ISO-10646 defines a large character set called the Universal Character Set (UCS), which encompasses most of the world's writing systems. The same set of codepoints is defined by Unicode, which further defines additional character properties and other implementation details. By policy of the relevant standardization committees, changes to Unicode and amendments and additions to ISO/IEC 10646 track each other, so that the character repertoires and code point assignments remain in synchronization. The current representation formats for Unicode (UTF-7, UTF-8, UTF-16) are not storage and computation efficient on platforms that utilize the 9 bit nonet as a natural storage unit instead of the 8 bit octet. This document describes a transformation format of Unicode that takes advantage of the nonet so that the format will be storage and computation efficient. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC4042
- Published
- April 2005
- Authors
- M. Crispin
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- INDEPENDENT
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 9
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3629UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646Current
November 2003
- RFC 4396RTP Payload Format for 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Timed TextCurrent
February 2006
- RFC 5137ASCII Escaping of Unicode CharactersCurrent
February 2008
- RFC 5335Internationalized Email HeadersObsoleted
September 2008
- RFC 2279UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646Obsoleted
January 1998
- RFC 6055IAB Thoughts on Encodings for Internationalized Domain NamesCurrent
February 2011
- RFC 6409Message Submission for MailUpdated
November 2011
- RFC 9839Unicode Character Repertoire SubsetsCurrent
August 2025
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?