From: John Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 19:01:53 EST
Tex Texin scripsit:
> However, that leaves open the question whether only the Unicode
> transform signatures are acceptable or other signatures are also
> allowed. So if a vendor defines a code page, and defines a signature
> (perhaps mapping BOM/ZWNSP specifically to some code point or byte
> string) does that then become acceptable?
IMHO yes. XML documents are not *required* to be in one of the character
sets that can be automatically detected by the methods of Appendix F.
You can encode your documents in (hypothetical) JOECODE, which uses leading
00 as a signature (ignored by the XML parser) and then A=01, B=02, C=03, and so on.
Autodetection will not work here, but it is perfectly conformant to have
a processor that understands only UTF-8, UTF-16, and JOECODE.
Of course some encodings, such as US-BSCII, which looks just like US-ASCII
except that A=0x42, B=0x41, a=0x62, b=0x61 will cause problems for anybody.
I am a member of, but not speaking for, the XML Core WG.
-- John Cowan email@example.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague." --Edsger Dijkstra
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 19:38:36 EST