W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: UTF-16BL/LE,... (was: Re: I18N issues with the XML

From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 100 23:34:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200004130334.XAA02991@locke.ccil.org>
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 GMT

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