SAX/C++: UTF-8 v UTF-16

Steinar Bang sb at
Fri Dec 3 13:07:48 GMT 1999

>>>>> James Clark <jjc at>:

> Richard Anderson wrote:
>> > If you feel that one needs to be mandated, I would pick UTF-16.
>> I second that.  The Vivid Creation SAX interfaces
>> ) have been UTF-16 from day 1
>> around 16 months ago ) and to date they've had nothing but positive
>> feedback.  I'd therefore make everything wchar_t and not char.

> Unfortunately wchar_t isn't guaranteed to be UTF-16.  Some platforms
> make it 32-bits.

Yep!  So I've heard.

Do you have a list of the ones that does this?

> However, I agree it's a good idea for SAXChar to be typedefed to
> wchar_t on platforms where wchar_t is UTF-16.

Hm... should we also to a
	typedef basic_string<SAXChar> SAXstring;
(needs a better name, I lowercased the "s" in "string" to differ it
from SAXString)?

(pf course, then we would probably need SAXChar char_traits<> of some
sorts as well...)

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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
unsubscribe 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