[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ddlm-group] [THREAD 4] UTF8

Hi Herbert and others: perhaps predictably, I disagree with this
proposal.  Herbert, I think we need to get some thoughts from the rest
of the group, but for what it's worth I've inserted my (predictable)
comments below.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein
<yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>   How about the following:
>   Any CIF dataset with no information about encoding is presumed to be
> in UTF-8 encoding, but CIF writers using UTF-8 should include
> one of recommended UTF-8 identifiers.

Disagree: there should be no requirement to include a UTF8 identifier,
as that is the only encoding in the scheme I am proposing.

>   All CIF-2 parsers are required to handle UTF-8, and may reject other
> encodings

OK, insofar as people are free to add functionality to their software
anyway; but a file in an alternative encoding is not to be considered
a valid CIF, so frankly I hope that there is no perceived need for the
ability to handle other encodings.

>   Systems that are handling CIFs in  encodings other than UTF-8 are
> required to include on of the recommended encoding identifers to clearly
> identify the encoding they are using and must _not_ use a UTF-8 idntifier
> if the coding is something other than UTF-8

As I don't think we should support use of non UTF-8 encodings,
obviously I don't endorse us making any recommendations along these

all the best,
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
ddlm-group mailing list

Reply to: [list | sender only]