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: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 100 16:59:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200004122059.QAA21638@locke.ccil.org>
To: tbray@textuality.com (Tim Bray)
Cc: duerst@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, xml-editor@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Tim Bray scripsit:

> 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.

For the record, that's not what the Rec says: it speaks of "UTF-16", not
"any flavor of UTF-16".

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 16:50:28 GMT

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