Re: Heuristics

Yes, neither last call comments, but comments on the comments. No action
required on either.

I could not be so cruel!  I think you and Martin must have the patience of Job,
the character model is taking so much time.  Everytime it seems near, suddenly
there needs to be another review...   But I guess it is because the definition
and usage of characters is the most fundamental issue.

Cheers
Rick



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@topologi.com>
Cc: <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Heuristics


> 
> 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 Sunday, 14 July 2002 05:24:43 UTC