[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: multiple encoding specs (Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376)
> > 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. In proxies, the cost/complexity ratio is very different. > 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. The problem is that you can't assume smart proxies. 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...)
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|