Subject: Re: [xsl] Challenges with unparsed-text() and reading UTF-8 file as UTF-16 From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 13 Oct 2006 12:13:51 +0100 |
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Michael> operating systems without any reliable metadata (in fact, Michael> without any metadata at all). An implementation could Michael> interpret this rule as allowing "I know this file is on Michael> an AS400 and I know that on an AS400 the default file Michael> encoding is IBM-EBCDIC". But I would hope that this would Michael> be done under rule 4 (implementation-defined heuristics) Michael> rather than under rule 1 (external encoding information). My thoughts are different - I believe that doing it under rule 1 is the best way, and make up for the lack of decent O/S support for metadata (OS/2 had it a decade ago!), by adding hooks so that the user can supply the encoding information in some way. -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Challenges with unparsed-, Michael Kay | Thread | [xsl] De-Duplification revisited (W, Dimitre Novatchev |
Re: [xsl] status of FOP, Oct 2006, Florent Georges | Date | Re: [xsl] De-Duplification revisite, Mukul Gandhi |
Month |