User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020529
Martin Duerst wrote:
Well, I think we're past the point of diminishing returns on this one,
but one of Martin's questions needs an answer:
Does that mean that you say 'there is no significant difference,
in terms of interoperability, between allowing only UTF-8 and
allowing both UTF-8 and UTF-16'?
I may be wrong, but I'm at least consistent. Yes, I see no gain in
interoperabiity achieved by ruling out one of UTF-8 or -16, given that
every deployed piece of XML software in the world will reliably read
either, and reliably detect which one it's getting. I see extra work in
detecting UTF-16 for the purpose of discarding it, and much more extra
work in explaining to someone who has generated XML which complies to
the XML recommendation *and* to the structural rules of whatever
protocol we're talking about why you rejected his message even though
your software could have read it.
And BTW I'm glad to hear that modern Java can actually do UTF8 properly.
-Tim