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 13:55:42 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000412135537.01a7a150@pop.intergate.ca>
To: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Cc: duerst@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, xml-editor@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org
At 04:59 PM 4/12/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>> 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".

When the spec was written, the -LE and -BE variants didn't exist.  Thus
the question of whether what the spec says about UTF-16 should be considered
to apply to those variants as well is a reasonable one to debate.  I think 
it should, for reasons that you've all heard enough times now. -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 16:55:01 GMT

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