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

Re: [MWBP 1.0] i18n comment: Support Unicode

From: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:41:13 -0700
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-id: <446CB1B9.6050509@yergeau.com>


Richard Ishida a écrit :
> I forgot to mention this during the call on Tuesday.  I had a long discussion around this topic on Monday and we agreed on this resolution.  I recommend that we accept it.
> I also discussed the two other outstanding issues we had and we came to some agreements on those.
> I think these changes meet our needs, and I think it will be difficult to get any other changes at this stage.
> 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: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org] 
>> Sent: 18 May 2006 16:51
>> To: Richard Ishida
>> Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: [MWBP 1.0] i18n comment: Support Unicode
>> Le jeudi 04 mai 2006 à 15:22 +0100, Richard Ishida a écrit : 
>>> 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.
>> As discussed with you in a separate thread, the BPWG has 
>> agreed to amend the text under the Character Encoding section 
>> to clarify why using Unicode is good choice:
>> "Encoding of the content to a desired character encoding is 
>> dependent on the authoring tools being used, Web server 
>> configuration and the server side scripting technology being 
>> used (if any). For a discussion of this see [CHARSET1] and [CHARSET2].
>> Unicode is a good choice for representing content when served 
>> in multiple languages. The amount of bandwidth required to 
>> transmit content can vary significantly depending on the 
>> character encoding used. Text consisting principally of 
>> characters from the Latin alphabet will encode more 
>> efficiently in UTF-8, whereas text consisting principally of 
>> characters from ideographic scripts will encode more 
>> efficiently in UTF-16. When choosing a character encoding, 
>> consider the efficiency of the available encodings.
>> Since the Default Delivery Context specifies use only of 
>> UTF-8, all applications should support UTF-8.
>> "
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060518/#CHARACTER_ENC
>> As this came as a result of a discussion with you, we assume 
>> that you are now satisfied with this resolution.
>> Dom
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 17:41:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:23:01 UTC