W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE: Clarify `UTF-8'

From: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:32:51 -0700
To: "TAMURA Kent" <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Hi TAMURA-san,

According to the table you cited, I have so far meant UTF-8N in every
instance where UTF-8 is currently used.

However, I have not before seen any document that prepends an encoding
signature, nor have I ever seen a reference to UTF-8N.  Is there any support
other than this table for the UTF-8N nomenclature, or am I just behind the
curve on this one?

To the contrary, the XML 1.0 specification clearly uses the encoding UTF-8
(which is the default) to mean UTF-8N by the table you cited.  For example,
Section 4.3.3 contains the following sentence:

"Note that since ASCII is a subset of UTF-8, ordinary ASCII entities do not
strictly need an encoding declaration."

John Boyer,
Software Development Manager

PureEdge Solutions (formerly UWI.Com)
Creating Binding E-Commerce

v:250-479-8334, ext. 143 f:250-479-3772
1-888-517-2675  http://www.PureEdge.com

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of TAMURA Kent
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 5:52 PM
To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Subject: Clarify `UTF-8'

XML Signature spec. and Canonical XML spec. refer 'UTF-8' many
times.  Please clarify which is each UTF-8, 'UTF-8' (with UTF-8
signature, EF BB BF) or 'UTF-8N' (without UTF-8 siganture).

See Table 2 in

TAMURA Kent @ Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM
Received on Monday, 19 June 2000 23:32:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:33 UTC