RE: [MWBP 1.0] i18n comment: Support Unicode

I forgot to mention this during the call on Tuesday.  I had a long discussion around this topic on Monday and we agreed on this resolution.  I recommend that we accept it.

I also discussed the two other outstanding issues we had and we came to some agreements on those.

I think these changes meet our needs, and I think it will be difficult to get any other changes at this stage.

RI


============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org] 
> Sent: 18 May 2006 16:51
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [MWBP 1.0] i18n comment: Support Unicode
> 
> Le jeudi 04 mai 2006 à 15:22 +0100, Richard Ishida a écrit : 
> > The current text, however, doesn't particularly encourage content 
> > authors to use UTF-8. On the contrary, since it talks about 
> using the 
> > value of the Accept-Charset header and is noncommittal about which 
> > encoding is being indicated using the Content-Type header and what 
> > determines the choice of encoding, it makes no clear 
> recommendation to use utf-8.
> 
> As discussed with you in a separate thread, the BPWG has 
> agreed to amend the text under the Character Encoding section 
> to clarify why using Unicode is good choice:
> "Encoding of the content to a desired character encoding is 
> dependent on the authoring tools being used, Web server 
> configuration and the server side scripting technology being 
> used (if any). For a discussion of this see [CHARSET1] and [CHARSET2].
> 
> Unicode is a good choice for representing content when served 
> in multiple languages. The amount of bandwidth required to 
> transmit content can vary significantly depending on the 
> character encoding used. Text consisting principally of 
> characters from the Latin alphabet will encode more 
> efficiently in UTF-8, whereas text consisting principally of 
> characters from ideographic scripts will encode more 
> efficiently in UTF-16. When choosing a character encoding, 
> consider the efficiency of the available encodings.
> 
> Since the Default Delivery Context specifies use only of 
> UTF-8, all applications should support UTF-8.
> "
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060518/#CHARACTER_ENC
ODING_USE
> 
> As this came as a result of a discussion with you, we assume 
> that you are now satisfied with this resolution.
> 
> Dom
>

Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 16:05:13 UTC