- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:05:57 -0800
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 4:40 AM +0900 12/1/00, Martin J. Duerst wrote: >>I do. :-) "Non-Unicode" is not specific enough to prevent >>confusion, as this discussion has shown. > >'non-unicode' is not part of the wording suggested. Maybe we are talking about different things. Section 6.5 of draft-ietf-xmldsig-core-11.txt says: > Various canonicalization algorithms transcode from a non-Unicode > encoding to Unicode. The two algorithms below perform text > normalization during transcoding [NFC]. We RECOMMEND that externally > specified canonicalization algorithms do the same. (Note, there can be > ambiguities in converting existing charsets to Unicode, for an example > see the XML Japanese Profile [XML-Japanese] NOTE.) The terms "non-Unicode encoding" and "Unicode" are not defined. I believe any of the following could be the definition of non-Unicode encoding: - all charsets except UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-16BE, and UTF-16LE - all charsets except UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-16BE, UTF-16LE, UCS-2, and UCS-4 - all charsets that are not defined by the Unicode Consortium in some specific version of the Unicode Standard - something else Clearly, "Unicode" is the opposite of "non-Unicode". --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2000 17:06:06 UTC