• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: Chris Lilley <chris@w...>
• Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 17:48:06 -0700

At 02:39 AM 4/5/99 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>Yes, this (rewading the encoding declaration) is a *good* thing, with
>the proviso  that I am talking about the encoding declaration. 

Right; and also including (forgot to mention it last time) the BOM
in the case of UTF-16 dialects.  To me, the single most troubling thing 
in the discourse over the last few months is that the IETF is seriously
considering a registration for UTF-16[LB]E which *forbids* the use of 
the BOM.  Poor Martin Duerst has invested immense amounts of time and 
effort trying to persuade people that this is actually not rank insanity, 
but he's finding the going tough. -Tim

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376
• Next by Date: Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376
• Previous by thread: Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376
• Next by thread: Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread