- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:21:48 -0700
- To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>, 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
Recently, I wrote: >Pardon my lack of imagination, but I just cannot see how a person or >committee can say that UTF-16BE stands on its own My nastiness was uncalled-for and I apologize unreservedly. My frustration is caused by my own lack of penetration: people who are known to be smart and understand the issues keep saying things that (to me) seem unrealistic and advocating practices that (to me) seem hostile to interoperability, and no matter how many times they explain why this is good, I can't understand. So objectively, the problem is likely on my side. Maybe -BE and -LE really aren't UTF-16 at all. That I can sorta kinda believe, if I try really hard, on alternate days of the week. Maybe there's some situation where it's a good idea to create XML in the natural 16-bit encoding of Unicode code points without a BOM. That I can't believe at all. But I've said these things more than often enough. That'll be all from me on this. -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 20:22:01 UTC