Re: [xml-dev] nextml

[Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:59 PM, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net> wrote:

  For me, UTF-8 or UTF-16 is certainly an improvement over JSON's UTF-8 only.

JSON is actually UTF-8/UTF-16/UTF-32.

OK.  I thought I remembered that at least at one time it was UTF-8 only.

 

I much prefer requiring only UTF-8. UTF-8 is enormously more common and a single encoding is a significant simplification; the gains from UTF-16 are much reduced by the fact that markup almost always uses ASCII characters.  If an implementation wants to support UTF-16, it should be free to do so, but as a requirement it is on the wrong side of the 80/20 line by a long way.

Would that look like a set of conformance levels where L0 is UTF-8 only and L1 is UTF-8 or UTF-16 (latter signaled by BOM), or would L1 be something like XML 1.0's current "whatever is declared, if the parser can handle it"?


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Weblog: http://copia.ogbuji.net
Poetry ed @TNB: http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
Linked-in: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/uche
Twitter: http://twitter.com/uogbuji
http://www.google.com/profiles/uche.ogbuji