- From: <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:14:46 +0100
- To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@topologi.com>
- Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
Hi Rick, I take it that your other mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002Jul/0036 is a Last Call comment, but I'm not sure about this mail, even though you addressed it to www-i18n-comments. It looks more like a contribution to a discussion, suited to, for example, w3c-i18n-ig. Please clarify. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume that it is *not* a Last Call comment. Thanks, Misha On 13/07/2002 07:54:04 Rick Jelliffe wrote: > From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org> > > > We think that the Appendix of XML 1.0 does not give heuristics, > > in that no two implementations will interpret a document as > > being encoded in different encodings. (there may of course > > be differences in what encodings the two implementations accept). > > And, more than that, if there are encodings uncovered or developed > which cannot be fitted into the XML Appendix F mechanism, they are > unsuitable for being used for any public XML. > > (I should say "any public XML that is distributed > using a protocol which may not reliably provide the correct overriding". > HTTP can provide an overriding encoding, but because HTTP > is unreliable in this regard in practise, just "any public XML" is > adequate.") > > Cheers > Rick jelliffe > ------------------------------------------------------------- --- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2002 08:10:40 UTC