- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 19:40:58 +0100
- To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>, ietf-charsets@iana.org
At 10:01 14.12.99 -0800, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>At 05:07 PM 12/14/99 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>My personal opinion is that it should have gone Informational.
>
>If we ever get to the point of putting XML-based protocols on standards
>track *and* we want to allow those protocols to use UTF-16/LE/BE (because
>this is allowed by the W3C's XML standard), then I think the UTF-16
>document should be on standards track. I could certainly see a world where
>we want XML-based protocols where UTF-16/BE/LE are prohibited; that would
>be a good world. But if we want to allow interoperable UTF-16 in standards
>track documents, I think this should be on standards track.
Standards-track documents *can* refer to informational documents.
I can certainly see placing XML-based things on the standards track with
language that says "MUST use either UTF-8 or UTF-16; SHOULD use UTF-8".
Weakened beyond that, I start feeling unhappy about the XML-based spec, not
about the sanctity of the references.
There's a reason why we have humans to make these judgment calls.
Harald A
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 1999 14:58:37 UTC