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

[Gavin Thomas Nicol]

> >   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.

In proxies, the cost/complexity ratio is very different.

> 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
> either.

The problem is that you can't assume smart proxies.


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;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)