Re: UTF-16BL/LE,... (was: Re: I18N issues with the XML Specification

At 05:44 PM 4/12/00 +0900, Martin J. Duerst wrote:
>The first issue I have (almost) completed is the one
>on UTF-16BE/LE, at:
>http://www.w3.org/International/Group/issues/xml/Overview.html#utf16.be.le

For the record, and this will come as no surprise, I totally oppose this 
change, because I do *not* think 16LE and 16BE are appropriate for use with
XML, as they fly in the face of XML's orientation towards interoperability
across heterogeneous systems.  I think XML entities encoded in any flavor
of UTF-16 should always have a BOM; exactly what the current spec [correctly
IMHO] says.

I have never heard a remotely plausible argument or use-case for why you
might want to create an XML document in UTF-16 without a BOM. 

Sorry, Martin. -Tim

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 11:25:19 UTC