- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:29:30 -0700
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Chris Lilley wrote:
> In the XML instance, this may be accomplished by having them appear as
> themselves (unless you deliberately chose a less portable and less
> comprehensive encoding than the two universally understood ones and
> declared it as such in the xml encoding declaration in which case, ask
> yourself again what you did that for) or via NCRs.
I write XML in ISO-8859 all the time. Furthermore, the original source
code of the XML 1.0 specification was in ISO-8859-1. For me, ISO-8859-1
is culturally appropriate and storage-efficient. 'Ongoing' is written
in pure ASCII, (which, left undeclared, pretends to be UTF-8).
'Ongoing' makes regular use of non-ASCII characters, this is made easy
by XML's entity & NCR mechanism.
XML is explicitly designed to allow people to use the encodings that are
appropriate for them, and there's good support for this in deployed
software.
--
Cheers, Tim Bray
(ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 18:29:44 UTC