multiple encoding specs (Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376)

Chris Lilley chris at
Mon Apr 19 22:28:09 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
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list