W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: Translated IUC10 Web pages: Experimental Results

From: Alain LaBont/e'/ <alb@sct.gouv.qc.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:54:21 -0500
Message-Id: <9702051854.AA19739@socrate.riq.qc.ca>
To: Johan Zeeman <zeeman@fox.nstn.ns.ca>, iso10646@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu, 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>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2337
At 11:55 97-02-05 -0600, Johan Zeeman wrote:
>At 11:31 05/02/97 -0500, Alain LaBont/e'/ wrote:
>>Anyway the logic, one the source data has been normalized, should be the
>>same after all. I am pretty sure nobody uses UTF-8 or even entity names as
>>its canonical processing encoding... That would be a nonsense. But who
>>knows, masochism exists, I know (:

>Well ... in our bibliographic database, we intend to store UTF-8 in the
>database on the server, and have the client applications transform to 16-bit
>representations for processing.  When a non-ASCII character is present maybe
>once in a hundred characters, the saving in storage is significant.
>My concern with delivering UTF-16 over http is not so much with the browser
>as with the other applications the document may be passed to.  Think of all
>the folks who still use WP5.1 because they are comfortable with it.

Brilliant case in point, WP 5.1 uses 16 bits internally, it never works with
the external character set (; In fact it is an example to follow, a superior
technology as far as characters ets are involved, no conversion is ever
necessary when you change character set, believe it or not!

Alain LaBonté
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 1997 11:02:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC