Chris Pratley wrote:
>Our assumption was that UTF-8 was the only Web-safe encoding that was
>reasonably likely to be adopted by browsers in the near future. Is that
>the consensus, or are raw UCS2 encodings being considered actively by
>people on this alias?
I think it very unlikely that plain 16-bit Unicode will be adopted by
browsers in the next year or two. The two encoding schemes which will
be widely used to encode Unicode Web pages are:
1. UTF-8 (see <http://www.reuters.com/unicode/iuc10/x-utf8.html>).
2. Numeric Character References (see <http://www.reuters.com/unicode/iuc10/x-ncr.html>).
The second scheme is intriguing as it does not require the use of any
octets over 127 decimal (7F hex). Accordingly, it is legal to to label
such a file as, eg, US-ASCII, ISO-8859-1, X-SJIS, or any other "charset"
which has ASCII as a subset. Browser vendors: Please check your products
against the pages referenced above.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT