• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 00:17:33 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200302282107.QAA14981@m...>
• Organization: Expway
• References: <200302282107.QAA14981@m...>
• Reply-to: robin.berjon@e...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021126

John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Berjon scripsit:
>>That's why in BinXML you can specify how you encode your data. In the case you 
>>cite one would simply ask that the xs:fooDate type use the UTF-8 codec.
> 
> I hope you have SCSU and or BOCU-1 codecs too.

hehe :)

I realize "UTF-8 codec" sounds silly, that's an obvious slip from internal 
terminology. Everything being a codec, the "null" codec is string/UTF-8.

Of course, if you need SCSU or BOCU-1 I'd be happy to oblige ;)

-- 
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
Research Engineer, Expway        http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE  8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488

• References:
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: Re: Namespaces conformance tests
• Previous by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread