Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Tim Bray <email@example.com>
- To: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:03:10 -0800
At 01:08 PM 11/15/99 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
>> The UTF-*'s are logically equivalent to most users, in that they share
>> the property that almost no real-world data objects are encoded in either.
>Quite true, from what I know, if you don't consider all the documents
>encoded in ASCII (which is a subset of UTF-8). Many of them aren't
>tagged as to encoding; assert they're UTF-8 not ASCII, and disproof is
>often going to be impossible!
I used to think so too, but actually, if you look closely, the proportion
of "ascii" that's actually pure US-ASCII is not that high. The prevalence
of é's and õ's and so on these days is in my experience really growing,
which means that documents which are ideally ISO-8859-1 but in fact
some Microsoft codepage is really immense. -T.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)