W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2004

RE: Reviewed charmod fundamentals

From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:20:23 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-id: <1987416CA83AC7499AC772F92E2DBF78BDF1BC@LONSMSXM02.emea.ime.reuters.com>

You are assuming that protocols carry documents.  Lots of 
protocols carry small discrete snippets of text in separate 
'fields'.  In such cases, there seems no point in allowing 
multiple encodings.

Misha


-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Julian Reschke
Sent: 08 March 2004 12:10
To: Jon Hanna
Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold; Tim Bray; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Reviewed charmod fundamentals



Jon Hanna wrote:

> Quoting Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>:
> ...
> However I agree with Tim's argument that allowing a choice of UTF-8 or
UTF-16 to
> be made by an author or producing application (and hence mandating
that the two
> be differentiated and handled by the consuming application) is a good
practice
> and should be allowed by the charmod rules.

As far as I understand, UTF-16 may perform (in terms of size) much 
better for asian languages, so it seems that it makes a lot of sense if 
protocols can choose UTF-8 vs UTF-16 based on what makes most sense for 
the document content.

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760



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

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging

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 Monday, 8 March 2004 07:20:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:25 GMT