Doug, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Tex Texin <tex at i18nguy dot com> wrote: > > > However, I didn't realize that parsers were to allow for the > > possibility of different signatures. > > So a parser has to worry about scsu signatures, etc.... > > A parser only *has* to read UTF-8 without signature and UTF-16 with > signature.
Yes, I thought so until I saw Michka's note. And I thought that gave me 100% utf-8 coverage. Apparently I would be leaving out the thousands ;-) that edit xml with notepad. It *may* read other encodings of its own choosing, including > ISO 8859-1, SCSU, JOECODE, or US-BSCII. (However, I can't find anything > that allows for SCSU with signature, which is a shame since UTS #6 > encourages the signature.) Can I stand on the other side of the fence now and refer to market forces when it comes to ISO 8859 etc. ? ;-) Anyway, I think you understood the context of my whines-- It was just reaction to this silliness with open-ended signatures... tex -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:Tex@;XenCraft.com Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com Making e-Business Work Around the World -------------------------------------------------------------
