**********************************************
** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY **
** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE **
**********************************************
The original message was received at Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:57:06 -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 08:57:06 -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 13:22:31 -0800 (PST)
Will-Retry-Until: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 08:57:06 -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 IAA00386;
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:57:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from agent@localhost)
by unicode.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23354;
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:26:56 -0800 (GMT-0800)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UML-Sequence: 18855 (2001-03-20 16:24:32 GMT)
X-Nutritional-Content-Warning: Message body contains 63% quoted lines
From: "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:24:29 -0800 (GMT-0800)
Subject: Re: Unicode encoding forms in web development
The form is most often chose by the place you are going and where the
strings are coming from.
UTF-8 is the best encoding form to use if you are dealing with ASP/IIS
(neither supports UTF-16/UTF-32) and is also the best for most browsers
(which also do not handle UTF-16/UTF-32, though some do).
In the end, you have to decide if WWW means to your company "world wide web"
or "world wide web with new enough browsers and servers".
MichKa
Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 7:52 AM
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/
>
