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

RE: Reviewed charmod fundamentals

From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:00:18 +0000
Message-ID: <T683cfd6d19c407b73d3ec@dtcseuvig6.reuters.com>
To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>

1. Lots of (ie most) protocols are not based on XML.

2. Is it really necessary that when the oven is asking 
   the extractor to switch on, it has the choice of 
   using UTF-8 or UTF-16?


-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Elliotte Rusty Harold
Sent: 08 March 2004 18:36
To: Tim Bray
Cc: www-tag@w3.org; Jon Hanna
Subject: Re: Reviewed charmod fundamentals

At 10:09 AM -0800 3/8/04, Tim Bray wrote:

>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

Given that "All XML processors MUST accept the UTF-8 and UTF-16 
encodings of  Unicode" (XML 1.1 spec, section 2.2) I can't quite see 
the reason why any protocol would choose to forbid either of these. 
Let people work with whichever one seems most convenient to them 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)

        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 Tuesday, 9 March 2004 12:00:24 UTC

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