- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:30:22 -0700
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, 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 01:55 PM 4/12/00 -0700, Tim Bray wrote: >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 As co-author of the RFC 2781, I think that anything that says "any flavor or UTF-16" is technically incorrect. The RFC very specifically separates the definition of UTF-16 (section 2, which is a restatement of ISO 10646 and Unicode) from the labels "UTF-16" "UTF-16BE" and "UTF-16LE". Each labelled type stands on its own and has a separate defintion. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 17:29:56 UTC