- From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:40:21 +0000
- To: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, www-tag@w3.org
The sentence quoted by Tim says:
C016 [S] When designing a new protocol, format or API,
specifications SHOULD mandate a unique character encoding.
Note the "SHOULD", which is used in line with RFC 2119.
If you are designing a protocol which would benefit from
allowing multiple encodings, you are free to design them in.
Misha
-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jon Hanna
Sent: 08 March 2004 12:29
To: Misha Wolf
Cc: Julian Reschke; Elliotte Rusty Harold; Tim Bray; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: RE: Reviewed charmod fundamentals
Quoting Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>:
>
> 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.
I'm assuming that there are one or more protocols that do carry
documents, and
hence would benefit from allowing both UTF-8 and UTF-16.
--
Jon Hanna
<http://www.hackcraft.net/>
"...it has been truly said that hackers have even more words for
equipment failures than Yiddish has for obnoxious people." - jargon.txt
--------------------------------------------------------------- -
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 07:40:29 UTC