- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:23:07 +0200
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <ldusseault@xythos.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:15 PM > To: Julian Reschke; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org > Subject: Open issues with internationalization section > > > > Julian suggested: > > > 1) Replace > > > > "...encoded, at minimum, using the UTF-8 [UTF-8] encoding of the > ISO > > 10646 multilingual plane." > > > > by > > > > "...encoded, at minimum, using any mandatory encoding for which > the > > XML specification requires support." > > > > Note: this inclused UTF-16. > > Does everybody agree to extend the encoding requirements to UTF-16? Will We don't "extend" - we clarify. Any XML parser is required to support UTF-8 and UTF-16. RFC2518 requires that an implementation uses a conforming XML parser. > existing clients support this if servers use it? Or do we need to be > more complicated, requiring clients to support both but servers > recommended to use UTF-8 unless they know the client supports both? Both MUST support both, otherwise they break XML. On the other hand, it may make sense to *discourage* any other encoding (such as ISO-8859-1 or win-nnnn).
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 17:23:23 UTC