- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: 19 Feb 2002 18:23:15 -0500
- To: WWW DOM <www-dom@w3.org>
On Sun, 2002-02-17 at 19:15, Allen, Michael B (RSCH) wrote: > Specifying the type is one thing, but specifying the encoding is another. > Making it UTF-16 (big endian, little endian, w/wo BOM?) unnecessarily > constrains the implementation. I know first hand it creates a significant barrier > for C. It requires that the implementation provide all the usual string > manipulation functions. Consider what would happen if the DOMString type > were defined as a long and specified the encoding as UCS-4BE? What would > the Java language binding look like? see [[ Applications must encode DOMString using UTF-16 ]] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Core-20001113/core.html#ID-C74D1578 big endian or little endian is platform dependent. I don't think that the BOM doesn't have anything to do in a DOMString. Philippe
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 18:23:15 UTC