Re: [Geopriv] Domain identifier in common policy

At least, it's not a general problem...

I still fail to see the practical advantage of allowing UTF-16, given 
that we control the input and that this is not general text, but rather 
strings with a very specific purpose.

Andrew Newton wrote:
> 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
>>>>