- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 14:00:14 -0500
- To: "Kurosaka, Teruhiko" <Teruhiko.Kurosaka@iona.com>, "Kentaroh Noji" <NOJIK@jp.ibm.com>
- Cc: <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
Hello Kuro, At 10:36 03/01/08 -0800, Kurosaka, Teruhiko wrote: >Kentaroh-san, >Thank you for considering my comments. > > > 2.1.2.2 > > XML Japanese profile document [XML-JP] describes considerations about > an ambiguities in code conversion > > between Unicode and non-Unicode encodings. > >[XML-JP] is an excellent summary of problems we face today but it does not >suggest >a solution to them. Perhaps we should suggest something better beyond >pointing >to this document (if we can come up with somethinig better:-) My understanding is that 'use utf-8' is a solution. I think we are already proposing that. The other solution that XML-JP is proposing is to register separate 'charset' labels for each of the variants. I think there was an attempt for actual registration, but it hasn't been followed through. Do you think that would be a solution? Another solution would be to get the various system vendors to adjust their conversion tables. > >SOAP bindings and interfaces must handle both UTF-8 and UTF-16 > > unicode encodings. In order to use interoperable encoding among service > nodes, > >UTF-8 or UTF-16 are used for SOAP message. > >I would like to share my recent "discovery". Our field peple told me that >there are PDA-type or embeded device SOAP clients in Japan that only support >Shift_JIS ! >This is obviously violation of XML spec, but the reality is such >devices exist. The manufactures probably chose to violate the spec because >of the resource constraints. Should we mention such situation? Can you tell us any examples? If you don't want to tell everybody, can you tell me personally? I would like to contact the manufacturers and talk with them. I think mentioning is okay, but we have to be careful how we do it. Regards, Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 15:25:39 UTC