- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 100 23:34:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: tbray@textuality.com (Tim Bray)
- Cc: phoffman@imc.org, duerst@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, xml-editor@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Tim Bray scripsit:
> 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.
*shrug*. If I had my way, nobody would generate any XML encoding except
UTF-8 and UTF-16. That's not the Real World. In the Real World, people
use any encoding for their text files that comes in handy. The question
is: is there going to be a way to label those encodings properly, or not?
Prohibition just isn't a viable strategy: education (of the receiver,
who is free to reject the funny encoding) is.
--
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 23:24:56 UTC