Hi,
Although I don't know the popularity ratio of UTF-16
and UTF-8 in existing XML content, I think most XML
specs (and most XML implementations) permits both of
UTF-8 and UTF-16, so, the exclusion of UTF-16 can add
extra care to make a WOFF object by generic XML
implementations.
Could you describe the expected advantage to exclude
UTF-16? If there is any preference coming from non-
XML field, it should be clarified.
Regards,
mpsuzuki
On Tue, 31 May 2011 10:59:48 +0100
Jonathan Kew <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hello WG,
>
>The current text of the WOFF spec says:
>
> The extended metadata MUST be well-formed XML encoded in UTF-8 or
> UTF-16. The use of UTF-8 encoding is recommended.
>
>I'd like to suggest that we simplify this by requiring the use of
>UTF-8. I'm not aware that there has been any actual use of UTF-16 for
>this purpose in deployed content, and mandating UTF-8 would mean that
>UAs wishing to do something with the metadata (such as present a "Font
>Info" panel to the user) don't need to sniff the data to detect the
>encoding and then do an appropriate conversion.
>
>So I propose replacing the text quoted above with:
>
> The extended metadata MUST be well-formed XML encoded in UTF-8.
>
>Comments?
>
>JK
>
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.