multiple encoding specs (Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376)
chris at w3.org
Mon Apr 19 22:26:14 BST 1999
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> > But if you are transcoding, you have to fix it anyway - so?
> Right, but
> a) You have to fix it by parsing a peice of arbitrary syntax, which
> proxies etc. will most likely not do, for performance reasons.
Now in a different message you were saying that cacheing the results of
parsing the encoding declaration was not worth it because the effore
required to re-parse it each time was minimal. So I donm't see how you
can now have it be a performance hit.
> b) The XML declaration is part of the *document* as specified by
> the XML 1.0 recommendation, changing the XML declaration changes
> the *document*, which is a Bad Thing(tm).
Well in theory yes, but in practice the advantages seem to me to
outweigh the disadvantages.
If someone cares enough about an XML document that they think a changed
encoding declaration has destroyed its value (eg, a digitally signed
transaction encoded in XML) then they don't want any dumb - or even
smart - proxies merrily changing from UTF-8 to 8859-2 or whatever
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev