Re: Charset reviewer appointed
Dan Kegel (dank@alumni.caltech.edu)
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:58:32 -0700
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:58:32 -0700
From: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: Charset reviewer appointed
In-reply-to: <199807271231.AA01824@murata.apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
To: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>,
Cc: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, unicore@unicode.org,
Message-id: <3.0.5.32.19980727085832.008729b0@ni.net>
At 09:31 PM 7/27/98 +0900, MURATA Makoto wrote:
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>> At 08:51 25.07.98 +0900, Martin J. Duerst wrote:
>> >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.
>...
>Making the BOM optional is an upper-compatible change.
What would the consequences be at this point for XML
if this group tried to mandate a byte order for "UTF-16"
and mandate a BOM for "marked-UTF-16"?
- Dan
--Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)