Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 01:08 PM 11/15/99 -0800, David Brownell wrote: >> The UTF-*'s are logically equivalent to most users, in that they share >> the property that almost no real-world data objects are encoded in either. > >Quite true, from what I know, if you don't consider all the documents >encoded in ASCII (which is a subset of UTF-8). Many of them aren't >tagged as to encoding; assert they're UTF-8 not ASCII, and disproof is >often going to be impossible! I used to think so too, but actually, if you look closely, the proportion of "ascii" that's actually pure US-ASCII is not that high. The prevalence of é's and õ's and so on these days is in my experience really growing, which means that documents which are ideally ISO-8859-1 but in fact some Microsoft codepage is really immense. -T. 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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
