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

At 00/04/12 10:39 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>At the risk of offending those who have followed this discussion
>in much more detail than I have...
>
>Is there any reason not to treat UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE just
>like other non-required encodings, ala ISO-8859-1
>and ISO-2022-JP and such? i.e. you can use it, but not
>without an explicit declaration (either in the XML entity
>or in the HTTP headers or filesystem metadata or ...), and beware
>that not all processors are required to read it; you may
>well get a 'sorry, I don't grok that encoding' error.

That's exactly what we are working on.

Regards,   Martin.

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 22:51:31 UTC