- From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:48:05 +0900
- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>
- Cc: unicore@unicode.org, Multiple Recipients of Unicore <unicore@unicode.org>, kenw@sybase.com, ietf-charsets@iana.org
At 13:42 98/07/27 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > The BOM is part of the charset that UTF-16 represents. > Any application can say anything it wants to *further restricting* > what characters can apply where; the part we couldn't tolerate > was if XML insisted upon strings that were *illegal* in the registered > UTF-16, yet calling the charset "UTF-16". Harald, could you be more precise? Of course, if XML says e.g. that a character sequence such as "<<<<>>>>" is not legal XML, that's its own business. But e.g. for the use of the "charset" parameter in transcoding proxies/gateways for HTTP and email, I'm very affraid that if one application (e.g. text/abc) requires the BOM to be present, and another (e.g. text/xyz) requires it to be absent, this will lead to very undesirable complications. Regards, Martin. --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 1998 20:52:20 UTC