- From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 00:23:33 +0900 (JST)
- To: duerst@w3.org (Martin J. Duerst)
- Cc: murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp, masinter@parc.xerox.com, erik@netscape.com, Chris.Newman@INNOSOFT.COM, ietf-charsets@ISI.EDU, murata@fxis.fujixerox.co.jp, Tatsuo_Kobayashi@justsystem.co.jp
Martin; > > Larry Masinter wrote: > > > So far, I'm not aware of _any_ implementation of a browser _or_ a server > > > that support UTF-16, much less two implementations of each that have > > > been tested to be interoperable. > > > > Today, I made a UTF-16 HTML document in Japanese. > > The requirements on servers is obviously extremely low. The only thing > they have to be able to do is to spit out some binary data, and label it. > Spitting out works since HTTP 0.9. Labeling data shouldn't be a problem. Wrong. Such labeling of data is explicitely forbidden for text types of MIME, which means that UTF-* and related RFCs are wrong and they are not MIME charsets. > If somebody claims that it doesn't work, s/he probably hasn't tried > hard enough. The proper interpretation is that they (including you) have worked too hard to admit that you have failed and wasted expenses spend on your "hard" work. > If we ignore for the moment the differences between UTF-16 and UCS-2 Unicode 2.0 and 3.0 are totally different, though the difference is not enough to revise Unicode to be a MIME charset. Masataka Ohta --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Thursday, 21 May 1998 11:01:42 UTC