Re: [Geopriv] Domain identifier in common policy

If it doesn't support UTF-16 as the source encoding, it is not  
compliant with the XML standard.

BTW, thanks for the reference point with PHP.  I started looking  
around to see what various parsers using languages without native  
Unicode do.  Both libxml2 and Xerces-C define datatypes for xml  
character data.  libxml2 always hands the application UTF-8 but it  
supports UTF-16 as a source encoding (making one draw the conclusion  
that it transcodes to UTF-8 when UTF-8 is not the source encoding).   
Expat does the same, but there is a compile-time option to have the  
parser hand the application UTF-16 instead of UTF-8.  From what I can  
tell, PHP is the exception and not the rule.

-andy

On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> FWIW, I just picked the first XML application that came to mind, in  
> PHP. It doesn't support UTF-16. Source: http://de.php.net/xml and  
> http://de.php.net/manual/en/ref.xml.php#xml.encoding
>
> From all I can tell for PHP, it represents strings in their  
> 'native' (byte) representation, so that if you have two XML  
> documents, one using 8859-1 and one UTF-8, you need to convert  
> between them to compare literal strings outside the ASCII range.  
> (http://de.php.net/manual/en/language.types.string.php)
>
> I don't see why restricting character sets to UTF-8 complicates  
> processing.
>
> Andrew Newton wrote:
>> Usually they pass back the element content as a unicode compatible  
>> string or an array of unicode compatible characters, and the  
>> application does not need to make a distinction between UTF-8 and  
>> UTF-16.  Some languages have native Unicode support, but in cases  
>> where that is not true special types are defined to represent xml  
>> character data.
>> -andy
>> On Jan 6, 2006, at 4:39 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>>> How do XML parsers pass back string elements to the application?
>>>
>>>> Unless you foresee the development of special purpose XML  
>>>> parsers for this application, I can see no advantage to ruling  
>>>> out UTF-16.  As for your stated disadvantage, which XML parsers  
>>>> pass raw bytes to the application instead of a common format?   
>>>> Admittedly there are gobs of XML parsers out there, but I've  
>>>> never seen one that does this.
>>>> -andy
>>>