Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Lugt [mailto:email@example.com]
> Gustaf Liljegren wrote:
> <going long (sorry)>
> It all started with the XML 1.0 declaration <?XML version="1.0"?>. This
> signal, from the document to the XML processor, indicating what version of
> the spec it adheres to, is the root of the problem.
> I think it would be better if the XML processor worked out for itself
> whether a document conforms - and the user of the document should indicate
> to the processor what level of conformance he requires or
> Get rid of the XML declaration and we can all be a lot more relaxed about
> making small, incremental changes to the XML specifications. Does anyone
> agree, or should I get my flame-proof underwear on?
Apart from setting the XML version number, the declaration may describe the
character encoding for the document. Are we using ISO-8859-1, UTF-8,
SHIFT-JIS, KOI-8 or another character set altogether? Is the byte '0xff'
interpreted as a small umlaut y (as is general in western environments), or
as the Cyrillic small hard sign?  Yes, one could remove the declaration
and use UTF-8 to your heart's contents. However, many companies like using
old-time formats like ISO-8859-1; it's easier to edit XML with your standard
text editor. They would not like to lose this ability.
Nor - may I add - would they like older XML documents made invalid by
removing the XML declaration altogether.
> Kind regards
> Rob Lugt
> ElCel Technology