Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <email@example.com>
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:07:23 -0400
> > 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
> 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
> 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
The problem is that you can't assume smart proxies.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)