Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote: > > But if you are transcoding, you have to fix it anyway - so? > > Right, but > > a) You have to fix it by parsing a peice of arbitrary syntax, which > proxies etc. will most likely not do, for performance reasons. Now in a different message you were saying that cacheing the results of parsing the encoding declaration was not worth it because the effore required to re-parse it each time was minimal. So I donm't see how you can now have it be a performance hit. > b) The XML declaration is part of the *document* as specified by > the XML 1.0 recommendation, changing the XML declaration changes > the *document*, which is a Bad Thing(tm). Well in theory yes, but in practice the advantages seem to me to outweigh the disadvantages. If someone cares enough about an XML document that they think a changed encoding declaration has destroyed its value (eg, a digitally signed transaction encoded in XML) then they don't want any dumb - or even smart - proxies merrily changing from UTF-8 to 8859-2 or whatever either. -- Chris xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
