RE: i18n comments on Polyglot Markup [issue #4]

Hi Richard.

Thanks for your suggestions.

The polyglot spec now has this for the opening of the section:

[]
3. Specifying a Document's Character Encoding

Polyglot markup uses either UTF-8 or UTF-16. UTF-8 is preferred. When polyglot markup uses UTF-16, it must not include a BOM. When polyglot markup uses UTF-16, it must include the BOM indicating little-endian UTF-16 or big-endian UTF-16.
[]

Just so I am clear, are there any other pending requests for me around this issue? Or are we all set on this one?

Thanks,

Eliot


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Ishida [mailto:ishida@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 12:28 PM
> To: 'Richard Ishida'; Eliot Graff; 'Henri Sivonen'
> Cc: public-html@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i18n comments on Polyglot Markup [issue #4]
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> > Sent: 07 October 2010 20:40
> ...
> > I guess I don't
> > yet understand why it's so hard for an HTML parser to recognise an XML
> > declaration for what it is and treat it appropriately, rather than
> > assume that it is a processing instruction. I know that an HTML parser
> > has nothing to do with XML declarations, and so in terms of language
> > purity it doesn't belong, but the HTML5 spec currently recognises
> > xml:lang and xmlns attributes and handles them, why can't we write the
> > spec to do a similar thing with the XML
> > declaration?)
> 
> Ok, I found a thread where this was discussed in detail around the end of
> July, but that I hadn't read before, and I think I now understand better the
> reasoning.
> 
> RI
> 
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/International/

> http://rishida.net/

> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 8 October 2010 20:33:35 UTC