10971 2010-10-04 11:46:45 +0000 Polyglot publication should be more careful about UTF-16, UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE 2010-10-07 12:38:10 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML/XHTML Compat. Authoring Guide (ed: Eliot Graff) unspecified All All CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 hsivonen eliotgra eliotgra hsivonen mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 40542 0 hsivonen 2010-10-04 11:46:45 +0000 The polyglot publication repeats what was bug 10258 in the HTML5 spec itself. UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE are registered encodings that are by definition BOMless, so the spec should say "big-endian UTF-16" and "little-endian UTF-16" instead. 40678 1 eliotgra 2010-10-05 22:55:32 +0000 Hi Henri. Can you clarify something for me? Are you merely asking that I replace "UTF-16BE" with "big-endian UTF-16" as well as replacing "UTF-16LE" with "little-endian UTF-16"? Or is there more to this than that? Thanks. 40699 2 hsivonen 2010-10-06 07:54:39 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > Hi Henri. > > Can you clarify something for me? Are you merely asking that I replace > "UTF-16BE" with "big-endian UTF-16" as well as replacing "UTF-16LE" with > "little-endian UTF-16"? Yes. > Or is there more to this than that? No, that's it. 40736 3 eliotgra 2010-10-06 19:19:51 +0000 This change is in the Editor's Draft dated 6 October. Thank you. 40775 4 hsivonen 2010-10-07 12:38:10 +0000 Thanks.