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 17:21:48 -0700
Message-Id: <>
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

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