Re: Polyglot Markup/XML encoding declaration

On 2010-08-02 03:16, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Kornel Lesiński, Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:54:37 +0100:
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:55:28 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> We have several reason to introduce it. But I agree that there are also
>>> reasons to no introduce it.
>> I'm not aware of reasons other than ability to declare legacy
>> encodings in XML. What are the other reasons for it?
> Use case: To open non-UTF-8/non-UTF-16 encoded documents from the disc.
> (See your own comment above.= Opening such documents as XHTML
> documents, become impractical without an encoding declaration that
> XHTML tools/consumers understand.

That use case is just a subset of what Kornel just said.

You entire argument seems to be premised on the assumption that the 
ability to declare legacy encodings within the document is a desirable 
feature for polyglot documents.  But it's not.  Making additional 
special allowances for legacy encodings is not a worthwhile exercise. 
Authors can and should just use UTF-8 if they want to claim to be 
writing a polyglot document and have an internal declaration.

Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software

Received on Monday, 2 August 2010 09:02:38 UTC