
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20000412184720.0322b630@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:49:15 +0900
To: MURATA Makoto <muraw3c@attglobal.net>, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
From: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
Subject: Re: UTF-16, the BOM, and media types
In-Reply-To: <200004061516.AA02220@t3knz.attglobal.net>
References: <4.2.0.58.J.20000323143207.0331d9c0@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp> <4.2.0.58.J.20000323143207.0331d9c0@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk

At 00/04/07 00:16 +0900, MURATA Makoto wrote:
>In message "Re: UTF-16, the BOM, and media types",
>Martin J. Duerst wrote...
>  >So if something comes in with a label of UTF-16BE, then an XML
>  >processor can either say 'sorry, don't know UTF-16BE', or it
>  >can know it and interpret it accordingly. Every XML processor
>  >has to understand UTF-16, but supporting UTF-16LE is not
>  >required. If you don't like UTF-16LE for XML, just don't
>  >support it.
>
>I was assuming that people trying to mandate the support
>of UTF-16LE/BE.  It appears that my assumption is wrong.
>
>Martin, would you be happy if some processors do not support
>UTF-16LE/BE XML entities (to be precise, document entities,
>external parameter entities, external parsed entities, and
>external DTD subsets) containing the correct encoding
>declaration?

Well, it's not a question of me being happy or not, but
that would be absolutely fine. Assume an entity/whatever
came in over http with a charset parameter of UTF-16LE.
It would be absolutely impossible to retroactively ask
XML implementations to understand that.


Regards,   Martin.


Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03377 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prserv.net (out5.prserv.net [32.97.166.35]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03373 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from t3knz.attglobal.net ([210.88.161.91]) by prserv.net (out5) with SMTP id <20000406152052243025osb7e>; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:20:53 +0000
Message-Id: <200004061516.AA02220@t3knz.attglobal.net>
From: MURATA Makoto <muraw3c@attglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 00:16:05 +0900
To: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Subject: Re: UTF-16, the BOM, and media types
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.J.20000323143207.0331d9c0@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
References: <4.2.0.58.J.20000323143207.0331d9c0@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: AL-Mail32 Version 1.10
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-xml-mime.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-xml-mime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

In message "Re: UTF-16, the BOM, and media types",
Martin J. Duerst wrote...
 >So if something comes in with a label of UTF-16BE, then an XML
 >processor can either say 'sorry, don't know UTF-16BE', or it
 >can know it and interpret it accordingly. Every XML processor
 >has to understand UTF-16, but supporting UTF-16LE is not
 >required. If you don't like UTF-16LE for XML, just don't
 >support it.

I was assuming that people trying to mandate the support 
of UTF-16LE/BE.  It appears that my assumption is wrong.

Martin, would you be happy if some processors do not support 
UTF-16LE/BE XML entities (to be precise, document entities,
external parameter entities, external parsed entities, and 
external DTD subsets) containing the correct encoding 
declaration?


----
MURATA Makoto  muraw3c@attglobal.net