- From: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:04:42 -0700
- To: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>
- Cc: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>, "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@INNOSOFT.COM>, ietf-charsets@ISI.EDU, murata@fxis.fujixerox.co.jp, Tatsuo_Kobayashi@justsystem.co.jp
Dan Kegel wrote: > At 03:29 PM 5/18/98 +0900, MURATA Makoto wrote: > >UTF-16 should be sent in network byte order (big-endian). However, > >recipients should be able to handle both big-endian and little-endian. > > I think it might be good to add the lines: > > If UTF-16 is sent in little-endian byte order, it MUST be prefixed with > a BOM to allow recipients to determine the byte order. > UTF-16 sent in network byte order MAY be prefixed with a BOM. Just a couple of minor points: We should *prohibit* sending out little-endian when the charset label says "utf-16". The little endian folks are welcome to register their own charset name if they wish to do so. I don't have a copy of ISO 10646, but if I'm not mistaken, the BOM has a different official name, something like "zero width no-break space". I agree with Dan that the BOM should not be mandatory for big endian. We should probably use the normal IETF (RFC) words like "MAY", "SHOULD" or whatever they are. Erik --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Friday, 22 May 1998 10:07:57 UTC