Re: Reviewed charmod fundamentals

At 3:08 PM -0800 3/5/04, Tim Bray wrote:

>This is controversial.  I think in general this is reasonable, with 
>the single exception of doing what XML did and blessing both UTF-8 
>and UTF-16.  The problem with a single encoding is that it forces 
>people to choose between being Java/C# friendly (UTF-16) and C/C++ 
>friendly (UTF-8).  Later on, you in fact seem to agree with this 
>point.  Furthermore it's trivially easy to distinguish between UTF-8 
>and UTF-16 if you specify a BOM.  But I think that if I were 
>defining the next CSS or equivalent I'd like to be able to say 
>"UTF-8 or UTF-16" without feeling guilty.

Speaking as a Java programmer, I do not find UTF-8 to be less Java 
friendly than UTF-16. Both UTF-8 and UTF-16 need to be passed through 
a Reader on input and a Writer on output for any sort of robustness 
to apply.  Which one I choose to use is almost never based on Java's 
internal storage format for Strings.
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | | Writer/Programmer |
|               Java I/O (O'Reilly & Associates, 1999)               |
|              |
|   |
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News:     |

Received on Friday, 5 March 2004 18:17:08 UTC