W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: Open issues with internationalization section

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:23:07 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <ldusseault@xythos.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEDHFAAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:15 PM
> To: Julian Reschke; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: Open issues with internationalization section
>
>
>
> Julian suggested:
>
> > 1) Replace
> >
> > 	"...encoded, at minimum, using the UTF-8 [UTF-8] encoding of the
> ISO
> > 10646 multilingual plane."
> >
> > by
> >
> > 	"...encoded, at minimum, using any mandatory encoding for which
> the
> > XML specification requires support."
> >
> > Note: this inclused UTF-16.
>
> Does everybody agree to extend the encoding requirements to UTF-16? Will

We don't "extend" - we clarify. Any XML parser is required to support UTF-8
and UTF-16. RFC2518 requires that an implementation uses a conforming XML
parser.

> existing clients support this if servers use it? Or do we need to be
> more complicated, requiring clients to support both but servers
> recommended to use UTF-8 unless they know the client supports both?

Both MUST support both, otherwise they break XML.

On the other hand, it may make sense to *discourage* any other encoding
(such as ISO-8859-1 or win-nnnn).
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 17:23:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:01 GMT