Henri Sivonen wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502021006440.5995@p...>,
>  "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@p...> wrote:
> 
> 
>>The /conclusions/ are fine, in their way:
>>
>>    * Use an editor that supports encoding.
>>    * Make sure you know what encoding it uses.
>>    * Use the same encoding attribute in your XML documents.
> 
> 
> That is not a safe conclusion. XML processors are only required to 
> support UTF-8 and UTF-16. Support for any other encoding is an XML 
> processor-specific extra feature. It follows that using any encoding 
> other than UTF-8 or UTF-16 is unsafe. If communication fails, because 
> someone sent an XML document in an encoding other than UTF-8 or UTF-16, 
> the sender is to blame.
> 
> This simplifies to a rule of thumb:
> When producing XML, always use UTF-8 (and Unicode Normalization Form C). 
> Those who absolutely insist on using UTF-16 can use UTF-16 instead of 
> UTF-8.
> 

this is theory

is there anybody who knows a parser that doesn't handle iso-8859-1 
corresctly ? i don't think so; otherwise, you should change, and 
communication became safe :)

-- 
Cordialement,

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