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

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

From: Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 16:34:59 -0500
To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: medavis2@us.ibm.com, Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>, MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>, ietf-charsets@iana.org
Message-id: <>
À 22:11 03/02/99 +0900, Martin J. Duerst a écrit :
>> Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com> on 02/02/99 12:34:14 PM
>> Since the problem with BOMs is their ambiguousness -- is it a real BOM or
>> an intended ZWNBSP? -- I currently lean toward a "SHOULD NOT put a BOM"
>> unless it's mandatory (such as in XML), in which case it is also
>> unambiguous.
>I lean more towards "MUST NOT". There is no requirement from XML on
>"UTF-16BE" or "UTF-16LE".

XML's requirement is based on the encoding, not the tag used to describe it.

Let's face it, forbidding BOMs with the BE/LE tags means that they can't be
used with XML, period.  That's part of the compromise.

>At 13:21 99/02/02 -0800, medavis2@us.ibm.com wrote:
>Exactly. If we have differnt labels, but they all more or less mean
>the same, that doesn't make sense.

They don't mean the same if some indicate byte order while another doesn't.
 That's the basic distinction and it makes sense even if they don't *also*
say something definite about BOMs.

Received on Wednesday, 3 February 1999 19:15:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:52:16 UTC