- From: Misha Wolf <misha.wolf@reuters.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 14:43:19 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Unicore <unicore@unicode.org>, Unicode <unicode@unicode.org>, www-international <www-international@w3.org>, HTTP WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Search <search@mccmedia.com>, ISO10646 <iso10646@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu>
Chris Pratley wrote: >[snip] >Our assumption was that UTF-8 was the only Web-safe encoding that was >reasonably likely to be adopted by browsers in the near future. Is that >the consensus, or are raw UCS2 encodings being considered actively by >people on this alias? I think it very unlikely that plain 16-bit Unicode will be adopted by browsers in the next year or two. The two encoding schemes which will be widely used to encode Unicode Web pages are: 1. UTF-8 (see <http://www.reuters.com/unicode/iuc10/x-utf8.html>). 2. Numeric Character References (see <http://www.reuters.com/unicode/iuc10/x-ncr.html>). The second scheme is intriguing as it does not require the use of any octets over 127 decimal (7F hex). Accordingly, it is legal to to label such a file as, eg, US-ASCII, ISO-8859-1, X-SJIS, or any other "charset" which has ASCII as a subset. Browser vendors: Please check your products against the pages referenced above. >[snip] Regards, Misha
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 1997 07:02:03 UTC