W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > October 1996

Re: B.1 and B.2 results

From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 22:04:31 -0400
Message-Id: <199610180204.WAA13118@nathaniel.ebt>
To: U35395@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
>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...




 
Received on Thursday, 17 October 1996 22:06:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:04 UTC