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: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:26:35 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20000413112607.033475f0@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, xml-editor@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org
At 00/04/12 10:39 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>At the risk of offending those who have followed this discussion
>in much more detail than I have...
>
>Is there any reason not to treat UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE just
>like other non-required encodings, ala ISO-8859-1
>and ISO-2022-JP and such? i.e. you can use it, but not
>without an explicit declaration (either in the XML entity
>or in the HTTP headers or filesystem metadata or ...), and beware
>that not all processors are required to read it; you may
>well get a 'sorry, I don't grok that encoding' error.

That's exactly what we are working on.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 22:51:31 GMT

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