- From: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:06:41 -0400
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>, Johnny Stenback <jst@w3c.jstenback.com>, "'www-dom@w3.org'" <www-dom@w3.org>, www-dom-request@w3.org
>I'd ask the working group to reconsider this one. It seems to be >asking for non-compatibility of code. I think a minimum of one >encoding should be required for all implementations, preferably >UTF-8; and I really don't think it would be that onerous to require >all three. Since parsers are required to accept all three (UTF8 and both byte-orders of UTF16, with appropriate byte-order mark), generating any of the three as the default output encoding should result in a document that all parsers will accept. And gods know you can't run test suites using a byte-level analysis tool, since some aspects of XML formatting are variable. I agree that it would be preferable for everyone to support at least these three basic encodings. But I'm not sure that needs to be mandated as opposed to being left as a quality-of-implementation issue. I think the marketplace will push folks to support UTF-8 whether we mandate it or not. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman, IBM Next-Generation Web Technologies: XML, XSL and more. "The world changed profoundly and unpredictably the day Tim Berners Lee got bitten by a radioactive spider." -- Rafe Culpin, in r.m.filk
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 09:17:15 UTC