- From: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:53:40 -0400
- To: GEO <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>, W3c I18n Group <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
I was looking at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis-05.txt for other reasons, and still thinking about our GEO discussion of the BOM today. It says: o A protocol SHOULD also forbid use of U+FEFF as a signature for those textual protocol elements for which the protocol provides character encoding identification mechanisms, when it is expected that implementations of the protocol will be in a position to always use the mechanisms properly. This will be the case when the protocol elements are maintained tightly under the control of the implementation from the time of their creation to the time of their (properly labeled) transmission. To me, this says that since CSS has @charset as an encoding identification mechanism, and since that mechanism is adequate (except for encodings that are not ASCII compatible), that CSS SHOULD forbid the BOM when encoded in UTF-8. I realize it is a SHOULD not a MUST, but it also strikes me as cleaner policy to have fewer ways to do the same thing, and Notepad not withstanding, this should be our recommendation for UTF-8. Tex -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com Making e-Business Work Around the World -------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 21:54:32 UTC