- From: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:58:32 -0700
- To: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>, 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
At 09:31 PM 7/27/98 +0900, MURATA Makoto wrote: >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. >... >Making the BOM optional is an upper-compatible change. What would the consequences be at this point for XML if this group tried to mandate a byte order for "UTF-16" and mandate a BOM for "marked-UTF-16"? - Dan --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 09:01:23 UTC