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: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 18:19:01 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20000414181435.02f9a660@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@gate.sinica.edu.tw>, xml-editor@w3.org
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org
At 00/04/14 03:16 +0800, Rick Jelliffe wrote:

>Of course, EUC fixed is allowed by XML at the moment. The idea, that
>some people may get, that Appendix F somehow defines the encoding
>detection routines rather than merely giving a nice start is why
>I would prefer, for example, the title of Appendix F to be
>"Example of Encoding-Determining Method for XML" or something similar.
>
>And why I think all talk of "this algorthm" should be carefully limited
>to something like "this example algorithm".

While Appendix F is not normative, it helps interoperability greatly
if people implement it the same way. The cases described therein
are what we know about, others may exist in theory or on some
overly old machines and can be happily ignored. The same applies
to agressively encoded UTF-7.

Saying something like 'you can do more guessing' may easily be
understood the wrong way, namely to do guessing even if there
is no encoding info at the start.


Regards,   Martin.
Received on Friday, 14 April 2000 06:04:03 GMT

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