I'm not at all sure why we are working at the character encoding level. Most other W3C XML specs since XML-Namespaces have been defined in terms of the Infoset, not the character encoding. I find it worrying that there is no mention whatsoever of the Infoset in our requirements doc. I realise that in the 6xx cluster we are talking about protocol bindings but I don't see any real need to specify a character-encoding. At the end of the day people will send XML that conforms to the XP spec. Whether that XML is encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16, ISO-10646, ISO-8859-x or some binary form shouldn't matter. Either the other end will be able to decode it or it won't. If it can't people will either stop calling that end point ( in which case maybe the implementer will support more encodings ) or the sender will try a different encoding. Maybe people will mainly use UTF-8, maybe people will use UTF-16, maybe they will use a binary XML encoding we don't even have yet. I don't want XP to restrict the encoding used. Specifying a 'character set of choice' seems pointless. If we don't *mandate* an encoding ( and I don't think we should ) then let people choose. GudgeReceived on Wednesday, 15 November 2000 01:04:25 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT