W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: I18N issues with the XML Specification

From: MURATA Makoto <muraw3c@attglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:13:37 +0900
Message-Id: <200004060213.AA02208@t3knz.attglobal.net>
To: xml-editor@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org
In message "Re: I18N issues with the XML Specification",
Tim Bray wrote...
 >I disagree.  I think that unless you're working in the type of highly
 >constrained environment I describe above, it is rather irresponsible to
 >create an XML document in UTF-16 without a BOM; the cost is very low
 >and the interoperability benefits quite substantial.  XML's design
 >is totally oriented to successful interoperation in heterogeneous
 >environments.  Thus, data formats that forbid the use of proven
 >low-cost interoperability aids simply should not be considered for use 
 >by responsible creators of XML, and we should not do anything in our
 >specs to encourage such behavior. -Tim

I am also against the omission of the BOM in XML.  Microsoft mandates 
the BOM.  Most text editors I know mandate the BOM.  I do not see any 
reasons to allow BOM-less XML in  UTF-16.

Cheers,

----
MURATA Makoto  muraw3c@attglobal.net
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2000 22:13:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:30 GMT