W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > April to June 2006

RE: [MWBP 1.0] i18n comment: Support Unicode

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:22:53 +0100
To: <public-bpwg-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020501c66f86$3bb6bbd0$6501a8c0@w3cishida>

[Due to travel, I have not been able to discuss this with the i18n Core WG,
so this is sent as a personal comment so as not to arrive too late. Please
copy the WG on the response.]

[I18n Core WG, this is a resend since the previously attempted reply-to
address for MWBP WG didn't work.]

Thankyou for adding the note about applications.  

The current text, however, doesn't particularly encourage content authors to
use UTF-8. On the contrary, since it talks about using the value of the
Accept-Charset header and is noncommittal about which encoding is being
indicated using the Content-Type header and what determines the choice of
encoding, it makes no clear recommendation to use utf-8.

I think it would be useful to draw on what you say in your response below so
that the last paragraph says what you are thinking, eg.:

"All applications should support UTF-8. As the default delivery context
assumes only UTF-8 support, this means that by default, content providers
should serve content UTF-8 encoded (unless they know that the targeted
device doesn't support it)."

If we can get people used to using utf-8, and away from legacy encodings, we
can make a big improvement to the multilingual Web, but content authors need
to hear that message as well as application authors.

RI



============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dom@w3.org [mailto:dom@w3.org] 
> Sent: 12 April 2006 17:56
> To: fsasaki@w3.org
> Cc: public-bpwg-comments@dolph.w3.org
> Subject: Re: [MWBP 1.0] i18n comment: Support Unicode
> 
> 
>  Dear <fsasaki@w3.org>,
> 
> The Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group has reviewed the 
> comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of 
> the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 published on 13 January 
> 2006 Thank you for having taken the time to review the 
> document and to send us comments!
> 
> This message holds the disposition of the said comments on 
> which the Working Group has agreed. This disposition has been 
> implemented in the new version of the document available at:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060412/
> 
> Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with 
> it or not before 3 May 2006. In case of disagreement, you are 
> requested to provide a specific solution for or a path to a 
> consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot 
> be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a 
> formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director 
> during the transition of this document to the next stage in 
> the W3C Recommendation Track.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> For the Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group, Philipp 
> Hoschka Dominique Hazaƫl-Massieux W3C Staff Contacts
> 
>  1. 
> http://www.w3.org/mid/20060222165722.45B98439B@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp
>  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060113/
> 
> 
> =====
> 
> Your comment on the document as a whole:
> Comment from the i18n review of:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060113/
> 
> 
> 
> Comment 21
> 
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0602-mwbp10/
> 
> Editorial/substantive: S
> 
> Owner: RI
> 
> Location in reviewed document:
> 
> General
> 
> 
> 
> Comment:
> 
>  
> 
> We believe the document should encourage all participants in 
> the mobile value chain to support Unicode. This is extremely 
> helpful in ensuring international use of this technology and 
> ease of localization of content.
> 
> Working Group Resolution:
> This document only gives best practices on the content 
> delivery, not to the whole mobile value chain.
> 
> As the default delivery context assumes only UTF-8 support, 
> this means that by default, content providers should serve 
> content UTF-8 encoded (unless they know that the targeted 
> device doesn't support it). As such, we think we already 
> encourage support of Unicode given the scope of the document. 
> Is there any other way we could/should encourage unicde support?
> 
> 
> 
> We have however, added a note under 'How to do it' of 
> [CHARACTER_ENCODING] saying that the Default Delivery Context 
> uses UTF-8 and that all applications should support UTF-8.
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 14:23:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:50 GMT