[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16

To: erik@netscape.com
Subject: Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16
From: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@INNOSOFT.COM>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>,MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>,"Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@INNOSOFT.COM>,ietf-charsets@ISI.EDU, murata@fxis.fujixerox.co.jp,Tatsuo_Kobayashi@justsystem.co.jp
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 22 May 1998 10:04:42 -0700"<3565B02A.2BAD4D0D@netscape.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19980522073918.00968a40@alumni.caltech.edu>

> I don't have a copy of ISO 10646, but if I'm not mistaken, the BOM has a
> different official name, something like "zero width no-break space".

The official name in Unicode 2.0 is "ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE". This is  a
change from Unicode 1.0, where the official name was "BYTE ORDER MARK" with
"BOM" as an allowed alias.

> I agree with Dan that the BOM should not be mandatory for big endian. We
> should probably use the normal IETF (RFC) words like "MAY", "SHOULD" or
> whatever they are.

I agree as well.

				Ned

References:
- Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16
  - From: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>
- Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16
  - From: erik@netscape.com (Erik van der Poel)

Prev by Date: Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16
Next by Date: Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16
Prev by thread: Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16
Next by thread: Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread