Your message
To: Unicode List
Subject: Unicode encoding forms in web development
Sent: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:52:26 -0800
did not reach the following recipient(s):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:50:12 -0800
The e-mail address could not be found. Perhaps the recipient moved
to a different e-mail organization, or there was a mistake in the
address. Check the address and try again.The MTS-ID of the original
message is:c=US;a=MCI;p=msft;l={6B61ADAB-40-010320205011Z-10530
MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:northamerica:RED-MSG-07
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
Original-Envelope-ID: c=US;a=MCI;p=msft;l={6B61ADAB-40-010320205011Z-10530
Reporting-MTA: dns; red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
Final-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.2
X-Supplementary-Info: MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:northamerica:RED-MSG-07
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4418.65
Received: from inet-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.9.101]) by
red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.1600); Tue, 20
Mar 2001 08:28:09 -0800
Received: from mail1.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.20]) by
inet-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2883); Tue, 20
Mar 2001 08:28:09 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: from 17.254.0.82 by mail1.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT);
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:24:18 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
Received: from unicode.org (unicode2.apple.com [17.254.3.212]) by bz2.apple.com
(8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07473; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:27:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from agent@localhost) by unicode.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22900; Tue, 20
Mar 2001 07:55:05 -0800 (GMT-0800)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: Unicode encoding forms in web development
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:52:26 -0800
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Unicode encoding forms in web development
Thread-Index: AcCxf0LVzbAgAfAQStaF+QBAAqt7RA==
From: "Michel Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.=20
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.=20
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
