- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 23:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@INNOSOFT.COM>
- Cc: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>, ietf-charsets@ISI.EDU, murata@fxis.fujixerox.co.jp, Tatsuo_Kobayashi@justsystem.co.jp
> > What about end of line canonicalization? Do we stick with CRLF, or should > > we use the ISO 10646 Line Separator and Paragraph Separator characters? > > Or do we give up on a canonical form and just state that widetext/etext > > probably isn't suitable for use with digital signatures. I don't think any of these alternatives are correct. A canonical form is a choice among equivalent forms, where transformation among the equivalents is allowed. Here are two choices that might be acceptable: a) treat widetext/etext as you treat application, for the purpose of digital signatures: no transformations allowed. b) specify that the 'canonical form' of "widetext/blah" is the transformation into "text/blah;charset=utf-8" with CRLF end-of-line. What do you think about a "utf-16" specific top level type, e.g., utf-16/html == text/html;charset="utf-16" utf-16/plain == text/plain;charset="utf-16" no charset parameter allowed. It would simplify things; there aren't so many 16-bit charsets. --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Monday, 18 May 1998 23:47:40 UTC