W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: Translated IUC10 Web pages: Experimental Results

From: Misha Wolf <misha.wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 14:43:19 +0000 (GMT)
To: Unicore <unicore@unicode.org>, Unicode <unicode@unicode.org>, www-international <www-international@w3.org>, HTTP WG <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>, Search <search@mccmedia.com>, ISO10646 <iso10646@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu>
Message-Id: <6819431405021997/A83443/REDMS2/11B22BAB1300*@MHS>
Chris Pratley wrote:


>Our assumption was that UTF-8 was the only Web-safe encoding that was
>reasonably likely to be adopted by browsers in the near future. Is that
>the consensus, or are raw UCS2 encodings being considered actively by
>people on this alias? 

I think it very unlikely that plain 16-bit Unicode will be adopted by 
browsers in the next year or two.  The two encoding schemes which will 
be widely used to encode Unicode Web pages are:

   1.  UTF-8 (see <http://www.reuters.com/unicode/iuc10/x-utf8.html>).
   2.  Numeric Character References (see <http://www.reuters.com/unicode/iuc10/x-ncr.html>).

The second scheme is intriguing as it does not require the use of any 
octets over 127 decimal (7F hex).  Accordingly, it is legal to to label 
such a file as, eg, US-ASCII, ISO-8859-1, X-SJIS, or any other "charset" 
which has ASCII as a subset.  Browser vendors: Please check your products 
against the pages referenced above.


Received on Wednesday, 5 February 1997 09:43:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:40:40 UTC