1324 2005-05-11 02:56:16 +0000 on encoding 2005-08-17 14:58:37 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT Serialization 1.0 Last Call drafts PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED P3 normal --- 1 fsasaki scott_boag public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 3456 0 fsasaki 2005-05-11 02:56:16 +0000 http://www.w3.org/International/2005/02/xq-xt-serialization-review.html Comment ID: 3 3181 1 joannet 2005-05-18 14:04:01 +0000 This comment was discussed by the joint working group and the decision was announced in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt- comments/2004Oct/0026.html The XSL and XML Query Working Groups decided to add a byte-order-mark parameter to the Serialization specification to control whether a Byte Order Mark is written. The actual byte order used is implementation-dependent. If the concept of a Byte Order Mark does not make sense for the particular encoding selected, the byte-order-mark parameter is ignored. Please confirm if this resolution is acceptable to the working group. thanks, Joanne 3098 2 fsasaki 2005-05-19 13:16:43 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > This comment was discussed by the joint working group and the decision was > announced in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt- > comments/2004Oct/0026.html > > The XSL and XML Query Working Groups decided to add a byte-order-mark parameter > to the Serialization specification to control whether a Byte Order Mark is > written. The actual byte order used is implementation-dependent. If the > concept of a Byte Order Mark does not make sense for the particular encoding > selected, the byte-order-mark parameter is ignored. > > Please confirm if this resolution is acceptable to the working group. > > thanks, > Joanne It is acceptable to me. Unfortunatley that's all I can tell you at the moment, maybe more next week (which is too late I guess). Felix Sasaki 2980 3 fsasaki 2005-05-30 08:55:32 +0000 consensus of the i18n-core-wg, telecon 27 may 2005: the i18n-core-wg decided to reopen this comment. Please be more specific. i.e. * XML/XHTML: UTF-16: BOM required; UTF-8: may be used. * HTML/text: UTF-16: BOM recommended; UTF-8: may be used. 5110 4 liam 2005-07-21 22:00:17 +0000 Thank you for your additional comment; we agree that the text could be clearer, and accepted your comment. The XSL and XQuery WG rejected the suggested resolution because requiring BOM for UTF-16 was found undesirable for the following reasons: 1. BOM is not permitted for UTF-16LE, UTF-16BE, UTF-32LE, UTF-32BE [see FAQ on Unicode.org Web site] 2. BOM may be undesirable for serializing XML fragments 3. implementation environment or higher level protocols may prohibit BOM However, the WG would like to clarify this sentence "If the concept of a Byte Order Mark is not meaningful ...". The WGs propose the following rewording to section 3 of the Serialization specification: One of the enumerated values yes or no. This parameter indicates whether the serialized sequence of octets is to be preceded by a Byte Order Mark. (See Section 5.1 of [Unicode Encoding].) The actual octet order used is implementation-dependent. Replace "If the concept of a Byte Order Mark is not meaningful in connection with the value of the encoding parameter, the byte-order-mark parameter is ignored." with the following text: "If the encoding defines no Byte Order Mark, or if the Byte Order Mark is prohibited for the specific Unicode encoding or implementation environment, then this parameter is ignored." I have closed the bug in Bugzilla; if the resolution is not acceptable, please re-open this issue and add appropriate comments. If we don't hear to the contrary within two weeks we'll assume you are satisfied.