Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, EU citizen wrote:
> 
> 
>>The need for the XML encoding statement to match the original file 
>>format was not mentioned in any of the (many) articles I've read on 
>>XM:/XHTML over the last *four* years.
> 
> 
> The XML coding has to comply with the relevant bit of the XML 
> specification.  Whether you read it "over the last four years" or not. 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#charencoding
> 
> Talking about the "original file format" could be misleading, bearing 
> in mind that some HTTP servers are set up to transcode the 
> internally-stored file format into one that's more appropriate for use 
> on the web.  For XML-based markups, that may call for appropriate 
> rewriting of the document's XML encoding specification.  And if you're 
> using XHTML/1.0 Appendix C then the transcoded document would need to 
> confirm to its constraints too.
> 

RFC3023 talk about XML media types

i retain that text/xml (and text/and-others-related-to-xml) should be 
avoid on behalf of application/xml (and 
application/and-others-related-to-xml)

Here we get utf-8:
Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

!?!?! Here we get US-ACII, despite the encoding specified:
Content-type: text/xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

Here we get utf-16:
Content-type: application/xml; charset="utf-16"
{BOM}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-16"?>

Here we get the right encoding-known-by-your-parser:
Content-type: application/xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="encoding-known-by-your-parser"?>

-- 
Cordialement,

            ///
           (. .)
  -----ooO--(_)--Ooo-----
|   Philippe Poulard    |
  -----------------------