- From: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 21:31:21 +0900
- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>
- Cc: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, unicore@unicode.org, Multiple Recipients of Unicore <unicore@unicode.org>, kenw@sybase.com, ietf-charsets@iana.org
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > At 08:51 25.07.98 +0900, Martin J. Duerst wrote: > >However, please note that XML already decided to make > >the BOM mandatory for UTF-16. I told them that that was > >not something they should define, but they didn't listen. For the record, let me say that the XML WG DID listen! I am a member of the XML WG and was very much involved. The XML WG is very serious about I18N and does listen. Unfortunately, Martin's comment was away too late. Martin raised this issue out on 06 February 1998, which was four days before the XML recommendation. The voting was already closed. The voting was unanimous. The director already oked XML 1.0. At that time, the remaining work was supposed to be merely editorial. I recognized Martin's point. I informed him of the URI of the latest draft which was being revised. I forwarded Martin's wording to the XML WG on 09 Feb. But Martin's wording was debatable. In an editorial F2F meeting, the editors of XML 1.0 and the chair decided that it was too late to incorporate such a change. I can most certainly say that the XML WG did its best. But to err is human. Making the BOM optional is an upper-compatible change. I believe that the XML WG is open to such changes, after the registration of UTF-16 is made. Cheers, Makoto Fuji Xerox Information Systems Tel: +81-44-812-7230 Fax: +81-44-812-7231 E-mail: murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 05:31:41 UTC