- From: Taisuke Yamada <tai@iij.ad.jp>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:38:17 +0900
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
>> Does everybody agree to extend the encoding requirements to UTF-16? > > 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. Agreed. Also, this update shouldn't cause much problem anyway, as everyone seems to have gone with UTF-8. > On the other hand, it may make sense to *discourage* any other > encoding (such as ISO-8859-1 or win-nnnn). Hmm, do you mean by MUST NOT? Banning use of other encodings in the spec sounds too aggressive to me. Simply keeping it optional (as XML does) should be effectively the same. For world-wide interoperability, it is good to have Unicode as a MUST. But why not allow use of other encodings under controlled or non-public environment? -- Taisuke Yamada <tai@iij.ad.jp> Internet Initiative Japan Inc., Technical Planning Division
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 07:38:49 UTC