- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 12:10:12 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
- Cc: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>, ietf-charsets@iana.org
> I see good reasons for having the BOM with charset="UTF-16". > I see no reason for having a BOM with charset="UTF-16BE" or > charset="UTF-16LE". > > I think if we have all three labels and for each of them more > or less have "use a BOM or not as you like", we have the same > mess as before, just with more labels. > > I think there are people who believe in the BOM, and others > that think it's a bad idea. My guess is that it's very difficult > to change that. But I think what we can do is to try and make > clear from the sender to the receiver what the position of the > sender was. Basically, then, BOM-lovers would use charset="UTF-16", > and BOM-haters would use charset="UTF-16BE" or charset="UTF-16LE". > We would have several different things, but we would know which is > which. I think this is the only position consistent with having three different charset registrations: "BOM should not be sent with UTF-16BE or UTF-16LE, only with UTF-16." > We wouldn't have to change XML, only to add a clarification to > say that "UTF-16" in the XML spec means only the case > charset="UTF-16", and not the others. Yes.
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 1999 15:12:41 UTC