> From: Henri Sivonen [mailto:hsivonen@iki.fi] > Sent: 27 July 2010 11:33 ... > > [2] i18n folks have long advised that you should always include a > > visible > > indication of the encoding in a document, HTML or XML, even if you > > don't > > strictly need to, because it can be very useful for developers, > > testers, or > > translation production managers who want to visually check the > > encoding of a > > document. > > That's a bad rationale. It's a *very* bad idea to check the encoding by > reading a string that doesn't participate in encoding detection at all, since the > string may be wrong. Well any encoding declaration may be wrong - participation in the encoding detection doesn't mean that the encoding of the document will actually be what the declaration says. So I don't think it makes much difference. On the other hand, since actually getting your document into a utf-16 encoding is a little more complicated than using other encodings, it may be more often right - in which case it is extremely useful for people who visually inspect the document, given that they can't see the BOM and may otherwise assume that the encoding is not utf-16. RIReceived on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 12:14:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:40:58 UTC