**********************************************
** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY **
** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE **
**********************************************
The original message was received at Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:31:23 -0800 (PST)
from unicode2.apple.com [17.254.3.212]
----- The following addresses had transient non-fatal errors -----
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: Connection timed out with e414.sparta.lu.se.
Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours
Will keep trying until message is 4 days old
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
Reporting-MTA: dns; bz1.apple.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Final-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action: delayed
Status: 4.4.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; e414.sparta.lu.se
Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Will-Retry-Until: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 08:31:23 -0800 (PST)
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from unicode.org (unicode2.apple.com [17.254.3.212])
by bz1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29492;
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from agent@localhost)
by unicode.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22904;
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:55:19 -0800 (GMT-0800)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UML-Sequence: 18854 (2001-03-20 15:52:31 GMT)
From: Michel Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:52:26 -0800 (GMT-0800)
Subject: Unicode encoding forms in web development
Dear colleagues,
I work in a group involved in web development.
We are trying to understand the benefits of Unicode
encoding forms for HTML and XML. The benefits of
Unicode character set is obvious to our developers,
but when it comes down to encoding forms, they do not
see any advantage in using utf-8, utf-16 or utf-32...
Here are some of the reasons I heard from them and I
must say that I ran out of arguments quickly. I would
appreciate if I can get different point of views from
Unicode members so that I can be more convincing...
1- W3C recognized the benefits of Unicode character
set by enforcing it HTML and XML. BUT they also did
not enforce the Unicode encoding forms. Any character
encoding form can be used.
2- Since there is more than one Unicode encoding form,
its declaration/identification (charset, BOM, ...) is
still compulsory. Then why not using any other
character encoding form?
3- Authoring and development tools have a better
support of "local" character encoding forms (non
Unicode ones). That is why the vast majority of web
pages do not use Utf-8, 16 or 32.
Thanks for your comments.
Paul.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
