13396 2011-07-27 18:20:45 +0000 i18n-ISSUE-77: HTTP and defaulting to UTF-16LE 2011-11-18 15:58:24 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED a11y, a11ytf P2 normal --- 1 public-i18n-core ian duerst hsivonen ian joshue.oconnor mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 51569 0 public-i18n-core 2011-07-27 18:20:45 +0000 8.2.2.2 Character encodings http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html#character-encodings-0 Supported by the i18n WG. "When a user agent is to use the UTF-16 encoding but no BOM has been found, user agents must default to UTF-16LE." If the HTTP header declares the file to be UTF-16BE, which I believe it can, and in which case a BOM should *not* be used, then I think that this would not be true. If the HTTP header declares the file to be UTF-16, then there must be a BOM, so I assume that this is a recovery mechanism if someone does declare UTF-16 in HTTP but omits the BOM. I'd think that some kind of clarification and perhaps error message would be in order though. 51609 1 hsivonen 2011-07-28 08:03:42 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > 8.2.2.2 Character encodings > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html#character-encodings-0 > > Supported by the i18n WG. > > "When a user agent is to use the UTF-16 encoding but no BOM has been found, > user agents must default to UTF-16LE." > > If the HTTP header declares the file to be UTF-16BE, which I believe it can, > and in which case a BOM should *not* be used, then I think that this would not > be true. Then the user agent isn't to use the UTF-16 encoding but the UTF-16BE encoding. The quoted sentence shouldn't say "UTF-16LE". It should say "little-endian UTF-16", unless the spec intends the reported encoding for the document to change and I'm pretty sure that's not the intention. > If the HTTP header declares the file to be UTF-16, then there must be > a BOM, so I assume that this is a recovery mechanism if someone does declare > UTF-16 in HTTP but omits the BOM. Yes. 51722 2 duerst 2011-07-29 02:02:56 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > (In reply to comment #0) > > 8.2.2.2 Character encodings > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html#character-encodings-0 > > > > Supported by the i18n WG. > > > > "When a user agent is to use the UTF-16 encoding but no BOM has been found, > > user agents must default to UTF-16LE." > > > > If the HTTP header declares the file to be UTF-16BE, which I believe it can, > > and in which case a BOM should *not* be used, then I think that this would not > > be true. > > Then the user agent isn't to use the UTF-16 encoding but the UTF-16BE encoding. > The quoted sentence shouldn't say "UTF-16LE". It should say "little-endian > UTF-16", unless the spec intends the reported encoding for the document to > change and I'm pretty sure that's not the intention. This would definitely make things clearer. I'd also suggest to change "is to use the UTF-16 encoding" at the start of the sentence to something that makes it clearer that this is stuff *labeled* with a label of "UTF-16" (using explicit quotes). > > If the HTTP header declares the file to be UTF-16, then there must be > > a BOM, so I assume that this is a recovery mechanism if someone does declare > > UTF-16 in HTTP but omits the BOM. > > Yes. It may help to make this clear in the text. Regards, Martin. 53974 3 mike 2011-08-04 05:34:59 +0000 mass-move component to LC1 55364 4 ian 2011-08-17 22:27:57 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: Concurred with reporter's comments. 55365 5 contributor 2011-08-17 22:28:43 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r6498. Check-in comment: Clean up how we refer to UTF-16. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6497&to=6498