Re: Charset reviewer appointed

• From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
• Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 08:51:57 +0900
• To: unicore@unicode.org
• Cc: Multiple Recipients of Unicore <unicore@unicode.org>, kenw@sybase.com, ietf-charsets@iana.org
• Message-id: <199807270013.JAA29966@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

At 14:05 98/07/24 -0700, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> With regards to Harald Alvestrand's summary of the open
> issues with respect to the UTF-16 registration, the only
> way I see forward, given the nature of the "charset"
> definition, is to split this request into two registrations:
> 
> UTF-16   big-endian UTF-16
> UTF-16BS little-endian (byte-swapped) UTF-16

Hello Ken,

I agree with you that this would be the best solution.
However, please note that XML already decided to make
the BOM mandatory for UTF-16. I told them that that was
not something they should define, but they didn't listen.

There would be a "way out" by saying that in that case,
the BOM is part of an "intermediate layer" (no, it's
of course not part of XML, because it's not present
in UTF-8 or other encodings), and not part of UTF-16
as defined above. But such a "way out" is really clumsy.

Regards,   Martin.

--Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)

Received on Sunday, 26 July 1998 17:18:54 UTC