[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: B.1 and B.2 results



>XML does not explicitly sanction the use of any other encodings.  It is
>recognized, however, that many documents exist in other encodings.  To
>support processors in dealing with this situation, an XML document may
>contain at its beginning, before any other text, markup, PIs, or white
>space, an Encoding Declaration PI matching
>
>EncDecl ::=
>  '<?XML' S 'encoding' Eq ("'" Encoding "'")|('"' Encoding '"') S? '>'
>
>An XML processor may choose to read Encoding Declaration PIs and accept
>nonstandard encodings so declared.  In validating processors such
>behavior must be at user option.
...
>An XML document which lacks both the Byte Order Mark and an Encoding
>Declaration PI must be in the UTF-8 encoding.  It is an error for a
>document to be in an encoding other than that declared in its Encoding
>Declaration PI.

This CANNOT be REQUIRED behaviour. This is a gross hack!!! I also cannot
condone the clause "does not explicitly sanction".

Seems to me like here is another mailing list that I've wasted a lot
of time on...




 


Follow-Ups: References: