W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-charsets@w3.org > January to March 1999

RE: draft-hoffman-utf16-01.txt available

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 12:10:12 -0800 (PST)
To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
Cc: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>, ietf-charsets@iana.org
Message-id: <002001be4ee8$0a8944e0$15d0000d@copper.parc.xerox.com>
> I see good reasons for having the BOM with charset="UTF-16".
> I see no reason for having a BOM with charset="UTF-16BE" or
> charset="UTF-16LE".
> 
> I think if we have all three labels and for each of them more
> or less have "use a BOM or not as you like", we have the same
> mess as before, just with more labels.
> 
> I think there are people who believe in the BOM, and others
> that think it's a bad idea. My guess is that it's very difficult
> to change that. But I think what we can do is to try and make
> clear from the sender to the receiver what the position of the
> sender was. Basically, then, BOM-lovers would use charset="UTF-16",
> and BOM-haters would use charset="UTF-16BE" or charset="UTF-16LE".
> We would have several different things, but we would know which is
> which.

I think this is the only position consistent with having
three different charset registrations: "BOM should not
be sent with UTF-16BE or UTF-16LE, only with UTF-16."

> We wouldn't have to change XML, only to add a clarification to
> say that "UTF-16" in the XML spec means only the case
> charset="UTF-16", and not the others.

Yes.
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 1999 15:12:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 June 2006 15:10:50 GMT