W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > June 2010

[MathML-last-call2] RE: BOM in plain text data transfer

From: Robert Miner <robertm@dessci.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:19:26 -0700
Message-ID: <40A20C534FFFD5438E1A756DD25234D367A9DB@franklin.corp.dessci>
To: "Karl Tomlinson" <w3@karlt.net>, <www-math@w3.org>
Hi Karl,

After discussion it, we agree with you.  We have removed the sentence
"Similarly, the BOM SHOULD be omitted for Unicode text encoded as
UTF-16."

/w3ccvs/WWW/Math/Group/spec/xml/world-interactions.xml,v  <--
world-interactions.xml
new revision: 1.73; previous revision: 1.72

If you could acknowledge this is acceptable as a resolution of your
comment for our last call report, we would appreciate it.

--Robert



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-math-request@w3.org [mailto:www-math-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Miner
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:44 PM
> To: Karl Tomlinson; www-math@w3.org
> Subject: RE: BOM in plain text data transfer
> 
> Hi.
> 
> I think the language was originally motivated by some interoperability
> problems between several existing applications, but you may very well
> be
> right that interoperability would be better served by not prescribing
> the behavior in the spec.  We are looking into it, and it's on our
> weekly agenda, so we'll get back to you shortly.
> 
> --Robert
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-math-request@w3.org [mailto:www-math-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Karl Tomlinson
> > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 5:32 AM
> > To: www-math@w3.org
> > Subject: BOM in plain text data transfer
> >
> > I was a bit surprised to see the recommendation "the BOM SHOULD be
> > omitted for Unicode text encoded as UTF-16" for inter-application
> > data transfer at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/chapter6.html#world-int-transf-flavors
> >
> > I can understand the spec giving recommendation re the content of
> > the transfer, but I tend to think of the BOM marker more as
> > packaging for the content, and IMO it doesn't seem right for the
> > spec to specify how plain text should be transferred.
> >
> > Is the assumption here that the platform will have some other
> > mechanism, such as a charset specification, to indicate the byte
> > order?
> >
> > I infer from the surrounding context that the motivation for this
> > recommendation is legacy applications.
> >
> > However, I thought of the BOM more as an indication of the
> > encoding used in the data transfer so that an application can
> > decode the binary data (converting to its own internal encoding)
> > to extract the content.
> >
> > I should confess that I haven't researched the conventions here,
> > but thought it was easier to raise the issue now than later to
> > check that this is going to be practical.
> >
> > If the situation that led to this recommendation is only relevant
> > on platforms where the flavor name already indicates the encoding,
> > then maybe this recommendation should be restricted to such
> > platforms.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Karl.
> 
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 15:19:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 June 2010 15:19:50 GMT