Tim Bray wrote:
>is the word "should". In any case, I'd write software to accept
>UTF8, but I'd complain at anyone who sent me data so labeled. -Tim
Perhaps a bit hard to argue with a veteran such as Tim Bray, but
from what I know of the history of SGML and
XML, I wonder: when designing XML, was not one of
the main issues to make something with
less optional features than SGML?
XML has made a clear choice for the standard support of
the Unicode/UCS character set.
Shoudn't the (most commonly used?) Unicode
encodings "UTF-8" and "UTF-16" and their labeling
be treated as one of the cornerstones for XML(parsers)?
Personally I like it when something complains
heavily (i.e. fatal error). It contributes
to clarity and stability. For XML parser writers
as well as for users who switch between then
this then that brand of XML parser.
For such issues, flexibility leads to less security IMHO.
Furthermore, I don't quite see the difference between:
a) writing flexible software (by ones own hand, I presume)
while at the same time
b) complaining when a not so accurate encoding labeling
Perhaps is this perceived as a bit more personal?