On Monday, May 21, 2007, 10:48:49 AM, Anne wrote:
AvK> On Sun, 20 May 2007 02:24:11 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris(_at_)w3(_dot_)org>
wrote:
Swapping your sentences around: yes, the whole idea of +xml is that you
know you can use a generic XML parser.
Something that might or might not be xml, therefore should not use +xml.
An XML parser must understand UTF-8 and UTF-16 and may understand other
encodings. I gather that the Efficient XML folks will declare a new
encoding, and parsers which don't know it will not parse it. Same is if
I said the encoding was
encoding="i-bet-you-never-heard-of-this-one"
AvK> "Efficient XML" seems to be more on the content encoding level than the
AvK> character encoding level to me.
I would have thought so too, but Liam Quin tells me this is not the current
thinking in the EXI WG.
AvK (Assuming you meant charset="blah" as
AvK> opposed to encoding="blah" above given your examples of UTF-8 and
AvK> UTF-16...)
No, I meant exactly what I typed.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#NT-EncodingDecl
--
Chris Lilley mailto:chris(_at_)w3(_dot_)org
Interaction Domain Leader
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG