- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:55:42 -0700
- To: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Cc: duerst@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, xml-editor@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org
At 04:59 PM 4/12/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote: >> 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. > >For the record, that's not what the Rec says: it speaks of "UTF-16", not >"any flavor of UTF-16". When the spec was written, the -LE and -BE variants didn't exist. Thus the question of whether what the spec says about UTF-16 should be considered to apply to those variants as well is a reasonable one to debate. I think it should, for reasons that you've all heard enough times now. -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 16:55:01 UTC