Subject: Re: [xsl] Namespace Identifiers - URI, URN, URL? From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:08:19 -0400 |
[Michael Beddow]> Sorry about the previous empty posting! > So the original posting ought to have read: > "Just be sure your document uses UTF-8 encoding if you > don't put it, because that's the default encoding..." > then continued: > "Any bytes in your XML document that are not part of a valid > utf-8 encoding sequence will cause your XML document to become invalid" > and concluded with: > "It's better to put the XML declaration in and explicitly state the > encoding used" > This makes it seem as if there might be a difference between declaring UTF-8 encoding and omitting the encoding declaration (although actually there wouldn't be a difference). The problem you mentioned about declaring iso-8859-1 but actually including non-ascii characters is just as likely to happen in reverse with many computers, especially with older operating systems or applications. The real trouble is that a person can't easily determine what the true - as opposed to the claimed or imagined - encoding really is. Until this is possible, the encoding declaration can still turn out the be inaccurate. It seems we need a document checker that can determine if a document's actual encoding is consistent with some particular declaration. As a nit, aren't encoding problems a lexical issue (as opposed to a validity issue)? They get discovered and handled (or not) even before well-formedness checking, don't they? Cheers, Tom P XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Namespace Identifiers - U, Michael Beddow | Thread | Re: [xsl] Namespace Identifiers - U, Michael Beddow |
RE: [xsl] options select, Karlo | Date | [xsl] Parameterized attribute, Haque, Suraiya |
Month |