Frank Ellermann wrote: > Are you sure that you want more than one way (MIME) for this > magic, and if yes, are you sure that \u'nnnnnn' is the right > way in HTTP ? If there is a chance that these values have to > be displayed in HTML pages or used in XML files the NCR form > &#xnnnnnn; might work "as is", for \u'nnnnnn' something needs > to determine a corresponding UTF-16, hex. NCR, or UTF-8. Not sure I understand this. 1) Even if you want to use a value in HTML or XML, you will need to decode first, then re-encode, otherwise you'll end up with something like "&xnnnnnnn;". At least if you do it properly. 2) As far as I understand, the only difference between the two formats (BCT137, 5.1 and 5.2) is how they are embedded. BR, JulianReceived on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 12:29:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC