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: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@gate.sinica.edu.tw>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 03:09:11 +0800 (CST)
To: xml-editor@w3.org
cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0004140259020.10685-100000@gate>
On Wed, 12 Apr 100, John Cowan wrote:

> ... 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.

If Johnny User decides to be ultra careful, and labels his UTF-16XX data
with a BOM in the right order and with an encoding header that says the
right thing, we must not disqualify that document just because some 
pre-XML RFC gives outdated rules. 

If there is some contradiction with the wording, request a change in the
RFC, don't penalize users trying to do the right thing.  

XML only goes as far as saying, currently, that if the user does the
right thing, all will be well. It does not guarantee interoperability,
merely that there won't be spurious interoperability, if the user has done
the right thing.   We shouldn't allow things where the user has to be
concerned about doing too much labelling.

Rick Jelliffe
Academia Sinica
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2000 15:09:23 UTC

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