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

Re: Reviewed charmod fundamentals

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:08:41 -0800
Message-Id: <A15F891C-712B-11D8-95ED-000A95A51C9E@textuality.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, www-tag@w3.org, Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
To: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
On Mar 8, 2004, at 4:20 AM, Misha Wolf wrote:

> 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.

Absolutely.  I think that there are some situations where a 
single-encoding approach makes excellent sense, and other approaches 
where the UTF-8/16 choice is better.  I don't think one group of 
applications is much bigger or more important than the other, so I 
don't think a SHOULD in either direction is justified. -Tim


Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 13:08:58 GMT

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