You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
New protocols and formats, as well as existing formats deployed in new contexts, must use the UTF-8encoding exclusively. If these protocols and formats need to expose the encoding’s name or label, they must expose it as "utf-8".
In an encoding declaration, the values " UTF-8 ", " UTF-16 ", " ISO-10646-UCS-2 ", and " ISO-10646-UCS-4 " SHOULD be used for the various encodings and transformations of Unicode / ISO/IEC 10646, [...]
How does this impact TC 211's standards and resources? I guess it mainly would impact the XMG resources (encoding declaration has to be <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> instead of <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>). The standards impacted probably mainly originate from OGC.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Heidi,
given that both the W3C sources you cite are explicit that it is a case-insensitive label I see no reason to change from UTF-8 to utf-8 or vice versa.
I recently came across W3C's Encoding Standard. In 4.2. Names and labels, it specifies:
That subclause is referenced from e.g. the HTML specification, see 4.2.5.4 Specifying the document's character encoding:
So the requirement from the Encoding Standard actually overrules the recommendation from the XML standard, 4.3.3 Character Encoding in Entities, which specifies that:
How does this impact TC 211's standards and resources? I guess it mainly would impact the XMG resources (encoding declaration has to be
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
instead of<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
). The standards impacted probably mainly originate from OGC.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: