Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Julian -- sorry, I mean to say that we need to consider excluding C1. > > Jamie -- if we later decided to allow UTF-8, we'd of course have to > figure out how it fit into the overall picture. This sub-issue is just > about whether we should allow C1 in iso-8859-1, as the spec is > currently written. I see your point, but I think the reality at the moment is it's just permission to transport high valued octets, with %x20-7F being ASCII. I don't think anyone seriously treats the high values as iso-8859-1 (except by accident). I'm thinking the current spec, plus current practice (assumed, not thoroughly investigated), has a nice loophole to move it to UTF-8 without breaking anything. The key thing is "without breaking anything". Even if there are a few implementations which treat the upper octets as iso-8859-1, they will continue working if we start sending UTF-8. -- JamieReceived on Thursday, 3 April 2008 22:02:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 October 2011 12:14:01 GMT