W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > July 2005

[Bug 1324] on encoding

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:00:18 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1Dvj5W-00032p-1U@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1324


liam@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Additional Comments From liam@w3.org  2005-07-21 22:00 -------
Thank you for your additional comment; we agree that the text could
be clearer, and accepted your comment.

The XSL and XQuery WG rejected the suggested resolution because requiring
BOM for UTF-16 was found undesirable for the following reasons:
1.  BOM is not permitted for UTF-16LE, UTF-16BE, UTF-32LE, UTF-32BE
    [see FAQ on Unicode.org Web site]
2.  BOM may be undesirable for serializing XML fragments
3.  implementation environment or higher level protocols may prohibit BOM
However, the WG would like to clarify this sentence "If the concept of a
Byte Order Mark is not meaningful ...".  The WGs propose the following
rewording to section 3 of the Serialization specification:

One of the enumerated values yes or no. This parameter indicates whether
the serialized sequence of octets is to be preceded by a Byte Order Mark.
(See Section 5.1 of [Unicode Encoding].) The actual octet order used is
implementation-dependent.

Replace "If the concept of a
Byte Order Mark is not meaningful in connection with the value of
the encoding parameter, the byte-order-mark parameter is ignored."
with the following text:
"If the encoding defines no Byte Order Mark, or if the Byte Order Mark is
prohibited for the specific Unicode encoding or implementation environment, then
this parameter is ignored."

I have closed the bug in Bugzilla; if the resolution is not acceptable, please
re-open this issue and add appropriate comments.  If we don't hear to the
contrary within two weeks we'll assume you are satisfied.
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2005 22:00:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:25 UTC