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

Re: [MWBP 1.0] i18n comment: Support Unicode

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 22:54:42 +0900
Message-ID: <4471C2A2.1050807@w3.org>
To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Sorry for being late with this.

+1

- Felix

François Yergeau wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> 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
>> ODING_USE
>>> As this came as a result of a discussion with you, we assume that you
>>> are now satisfied with this resolution.
>>>
>>> Dom
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 



Received on Monday, 22 May 2006 13:55:00 GMT

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