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 10:09:30 -0800
Message-Id: <BEDEED18-712B-11D8-95ED-000A95A51C9E@textuality.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, www-tag@w3.org, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
To: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
On Mar 8, 2004, at 4:40 AM, Misha Wolf wrote:

> The sentence quoted by Tim says:
>    C016 [S] When designing a new protocol, format or API,
>    specifications SHOULD mandate a unique character encoding.
> Note the "SHOULD", which is used in line with RFC 2119.
> If you are designing a protocol which would benefit from
> allowing multiple encodings, you are free to design them in.

I don't think charmod should have a SHOULD in favor either of 
single-encoding or UTF-8/16.  I think it should point out that each 
alternative is a good choice in lots of situations. -Tim

Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 13:09:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:41 UTC