- From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 18:19:01 +0900
- To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@gate.sinica.edu.tw>, xml-editor@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org
At 00/04/14 03:16 +0800, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >Of course, EUC fixed is allowed by XML at the moment. The idea, that >some people may get, that Appendix F somehow defines the encoding >detection routines rather than merely giving a nice start is why >I would prefer, for example, the title of Appendix F to be >"Example of Encoding-Determining Method for XML" or something similar. > >And why I think all talk of "this algorthm" should be carefully limited >to something like "this example algorithm". While Appendix F is not normative, it helps interoperability greatly if people implement it the same way. The cases described therein are what we know about, others may exist in theory or on some overly old machines and can be happily ignored. The same applies to agressively encoded UTF-7. Saying something like 'you can do more guessing' may easily be understood the wrong way, namely to do guessing even if there is no encoding info at the start. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 14 April 2000 06:04:03 UTC