W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2010

RE: i18n Polyglot Markup/BOM+UTF8 (3rd issue)

From: Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:31:53 +0000
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE3A5BFD1228D84A8D9C158EEC195FD50EBC5BCF@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
The 29 September Editor's Draft of the polyglot spec now reads as follows for this issue:

Polyglot markup uses either UTF-8 or UTF-16. UTF-8 is preferred. When polyglot markup uses UTF-16, it must include the BOM indicating UTF-16LE or UTF-16BE. 

I believe this satisfies this request. Accordingly, I resolved bug 10156 as closed. [1]

Can someone please edit the information on the Internationalization Comments on Polyglot Markup: HTML-Compatible XHTML Documents to indicate this change is made? [2]

Thanks for your help and patience.


[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10156
[2] http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/1007-polyglot/

-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no] 
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:56 PM
To: Richard Ishida
Cc: public-html@w3.org; Eliot Graff; public-i18n-core@w3.org
Subject: i18n Polyglot Markup/BOM+UTF8 (3rd issue)

Richard Ishida, Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:40:24 +0100:

> FWIW, the i18n group keeps track of comments on your doc at 
> http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/1007-polyglot/

This is comment to some of the rd issue/bugs on that page:

	3rd issue:
		]] . This could be read "use utf-8 with the appropriate BOM or UTF-16 with the appropriate BOM", but a utf-8 bom (or signature) is not strictly necessary, and some would argue that it may cause problems, and it's use should be discouraged here. [[
		For the first issue, if it is possible to read the Polyglot Markup spec as if BOM is _needed_ together with UTF-8, then of course that detail should be fixed. 
		For the latter issue, then the HTML5 spec allows BOM, and has no warnings against it. Thus, unless HTML5 proper as well advice against use of BOM, then the Polyglot Markup spec must not warn against BOM either. (Unless there are any issues with BOM for XML parsers, then XML cannot be used to justify any warning against use of BOM.) 

		Based on Sam's message [1] and follow-up(s), I'd like to add: I think the only other option we have is to forbid the BOM together with UTF-8. 
This based on the view that Polyglot Markup seeks to be a "maximum compatibility spec". And your comments to the effect that there are issues with the use of BOM.

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/4C3F56AB.7030105@intertwingly.net
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 18:34:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:05 UTC