W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2004

RE: @charset rule

From: Mark Moore <mark.moore@notlimited.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:16:03 -0700
To: "'Tex Texin'" <tex@xencraft.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040719182006.70348A1632@frink.w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tex Texin [mailto:tex@xencraft.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:53 AM
> To: Mark Moore; Tex Texin
> Subject: Re: @charset rule
> Mark Moore wrote:
> >
> > Tex,
> >
> > Thanks for the response.  I kind of figured this might be a losing
> battle.
> > I'm not terribly familiar with Unicode beyond UTF-8 and UTF-16.  Are
> there
> > any significant encodings that mess with the lower code points?
> not really. You know utf-8, 16, 32.
> Just for your info:
> There is a variation of utf-8 called CESU.
> It turns out utf-8 orders surrogate characters differently from utf-16.
> CESU is
> utf-8 but preserves the order of surrogates.
> http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr26/
> There is also a utf-8-ebcdic, but it is not for use "on the wire" and just
> internal to ebcdic systems.
> http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr16/

Never being on the wire doesn't protect CSS implementations, assuming there
is ever a use for "native" CSS implementations on EBCDIC systems.  Right?

> Finally there is scsu- which is a compressed form of unicode and has its
> own
> bom identifier.
> http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr6/
> But these are not going to crop up for xml or css.
> So it's basicly the UTF's, ascii, and ebcdic.
> tex

I sure wish the owners of the CSS spec would just come out and say this.  If
this is the case (which I believe), they should just say so.  I don't
understand the reluctance to tighten things up.


PS. I CC'd www-style since your info may be helpful to others.  Hoppe you
don't mind...
Received on Monday, 19 July 2004 14:20:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:14 UTC