Request for Discussion: SAX 1.0 in C++

Steinar Bang sb at
Tue Dec 14 12:13:41 GMT 1999

>>>>> John Aldridge <john.aldridge at>:

> Why?  What's wrong with storing UTF-16 encoded data in a 32 bit
> wchar_t?  I know it uses more storage space; but there won't
> typically be that much data around in this format at once.

We store a lot of strings, so I think a quadrupling of the storage
space compared with what we do today, or doubling wrt. to UTF-16, will
be significant.

Another thing is that if we actually have 32 bit available, I would
have liked to use UCS-4, rather than UTF-16... using UCS-4 would fit
better with the 

(But of course to do that, I would need to have platform specific code
depending on sizeof(wchar_t)...:-/)

> I'd much rather have the format defined to be wstring (or wchar_t*, if you
> must, but that's another debate), because of the compatibility with wide
> string literals.

Hm... I don't know anything about wide string literals and their
behaviour wrt. to wstring, text editors and debuggers.  Could you
elaborate, maybe...?

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