RE: charset use of UTF-16 vs. utf-8 - Canonical XML

["Larry Masinter" <LMM@xxxxxxx>]

Consider that "Canonical XML" (RFC 3076)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315

Do you think it legitimate that protocols might require
that the XML entity already be in canonical form?
It would restrict them not only to be in UTF-8
but also various other restrictions
(e.g., the XML declaration is removed).

Is it reasonable to allow a protocol to require
a subset of the canonical restrictions without
requiring all of them?

Certainly XML digital signatures allows for
canonical XML both with and without comments.

I don't think we've really exhaustively enumerated
the ways in which an XML application might or
might not make additional syntactic restrictions,
and we've implicitly allowed them to if it
is appropriate for the protocol.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net