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

Re: Some text that may be useful for the update of RFC 2376



In message "Re: Some text that may be useful for the update of RFC 2376",
Chris Lilley wrote...

 >Yes. Though it is not clear what a non-XML-aware transcodes would do when
 >swizzling an XML document between encodings. Since it can't use entities or
 >NCRs, what does it use for characters that do not fall within the
 >repertoire of te encoding it is converting to? Question marks?

I believe that most trascoding of XML documents will be from legacy 
encodings to Unicode, since every XML processors can handle Unicode.  
If this is the case, we do not need character references or CDATA 
sections.

 >> It should always be an error of some kind if the charset parameter
 >> does not agree with the encoding attribute (or other Appendix F
 >> mechanism).  Only given that constraint is it useful to make the
 >> charset parameter significant.
 >
 >I agree, but then given that constraint the charset parameter is
 >superfluous since it adds no new information. However, I might be prepared
 >to conceed that it is not too harmful as long as it is constrained tosay
 >what the XML encoding says, and for it to be an error for these to differ.

I do not understand why the difference between the charset parameter 
and the encoding PI is harmful.  The arguement against the charset 
parameter is its omission.  If it is omitted, inconsistency will not arise.  
If it is provided, it is authoritative.



----
MURATA Makoto  muraw3c@xxxxxxxxxxxxx