W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > July 2002

Re: Heuristics

From: <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:14:46 +0100
Message-ID: <T5c10804e73c407b707a30@reuters.com>
To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@topologi.com>
Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org

Hi Rick,

I take it that your other mail:
is a Last Call comment, but I'm not sure about this mail,
even though you addressed it to www-i18n-comments.  It looks
more like a contribution to a discussion, suited to, for
example, w3c-i18n-ig.  Please clarify.  If I don't hear from
you, I'll assume that it is *not* a Last Call comment.


On 13/07/2002 07:54:04 Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
> > We think that the Appendix of XML 1.0 does not give heuristics,
> > in that no two implementations will interpret a document as
> > being encoded in different encodings. (there may of course
> > be differences in what encodings the two implementations accept).
> And, more than that, if there are encodings uncovered or developed
> which cannot be fitted into the XML Appendix F mechanism, they are
> unsuitable for being used for any public XML.
> (I should say "any public XML that is distributed
> using a protocol which may not reliably provide the correct overriding".
> HTTP can provide an overriding encoding, but because HTTP
> is unreliable in this regard in practise, just "any public XML" is
> adequate.")
> Cheers
> Rick jelliffe

------------------------------------------------------------- ---
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2002 08:10:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:20:13 UTC