- From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:20:23 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, www-tag@w3.org
You are assuming that protocols carry documents. Lots of
protocols carry small discrete snippets of text in separate
'fields'. In such cases, there seems no point in allowing
multiple encodings.
Misha
-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Julian Reschke
Sent: 08 March 2004 12:10
To: Jon Hanna
Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold; Tim Bray; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Reviewed charmod fundamentals
Jon Hanna wrote:
> Quoting Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>:
> ...
> However I agree with Tim's argument that allowing a choice of UTF-8 or
UTF-16 to
> be made by an author or producing application (and hence mandating
that the two
> be differentiated and handled by the consuming application) is a good
practice
> and should be allowed by the charmod rules.
As far as I understand, UTF-16 may perform (in terms of size) much
better for asian languages, so it seems that it makes a lot of sense if
protocols can choose UTF-8 vs UTF-16 based on what makes most sense for
the document content.
Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging
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 Monday, 8 March 2004 07:20:32 UTC