- From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 21:40:09 +0900
- To: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
- Cc: ietf-charsets@iana.org
At 14:25 99/02/03 +0900, MURATA Makoto wrote: > UTF-16 XML entities do *not* have to begin with '<?xml'. Thus, if the BOM > is made optional, we have a problem when the charset parameter is not > available. I have no problem with requiring the BOM on un-tagged UTF-16. But we are discussing the tags here, and so we have the assumption that it is tagged. Untagged does not concern us at all. And once it is tagged, we know what it is. The BOM is very helpful if it's tagged "UTF-16", because that tag is inherently ambiguous. So I can agree with making that required for XML. That's what the XML spec does. If something is tagged "UTF-16BE" or "UTF-16LE", then it's not "UTF-16", and the XML specification doesn't speak about that. The XML specification does not require that a processor accept "UTF-16BE" or "UTF-16LE". It would be magic if any processor would know these labels before they got invented. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium #-#-# mailto:duerst@w3.org http://www.w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 1999 12:58:11 UTC