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

Re: UTF-16BL/LE,... (was: Re: I18N issues with the XML Specification

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:26:20 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Cc: xml-editor@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org
At 05:44 PM 4/12/00 +0900, Martin J. Duerst wrote:
>The first issue I have (almost) completed is the one
>on UTF-16BE/LE, at:

For the record, and this will come as no surprise, I totally oppose this 
change, because I do *not* think 16LE and 16BE are appropriate for use with
XML, as they fly in the face of XML's orientation towards interoperability
across heterogeneous systems.  I think XML entities encoded in any flavor
of UTF-16 should always have a BOM; exactly what the current spec [correctly
IMHO] says.

I have never heard a remotely plausible argument or use-case for why you
might want to create an XML document in UTF-16 without a BOM. 

Sorry, Martin. -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 11:25:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:39 UTC