[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Alaric B Snell wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>> If all you have is an ASN.1 schema, and you're on the receiving side,
>> you don't know what you're going to get. If it's an ER you don't know
>> about you won't read it. That just won't happen if you're using XML.
>> You can chose to consider this unimportant, but a lot of us XML folks
>> think it is a core asset.
>
> Heheh, any XML folk who thinks that this is an asset of XML haven't read:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#charencoding
>
> "processors are, of course, not required to support all IANA-registered
> encodings"
There are several levels of concreteness, and they will vary according
to who you talk to. To some endianness is of high importance, while
others will tell you that it doesn't matter at the level at which they
are working. XML hits the concrete level when it reaches Unicode,
anything below that being pretty much someone else's problem. I guess
that's part of what makes it a textual format.
That being said, I'd have been happier with just UTF-8 and UTF-16, but
I'm nevertheless happy with what we have now.
--
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Scientist, Expway http://expway.com/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
