Re: Re: [Geopriv] Domain identifier in common policy

* Andrew Newton wrote:
>> I don't feel strongly about this; my only gut feeling is that it is  
>> a good thing to reduce options that don't add value. As far as I  
>> know, the set of strings representable by UTF-8 is exactly the same  
>> as the one representable in UTF-16. What is the advantage of  
>> allowing UTF-16?
>>
>> (One disadvantage is that any comparison would have to convert to a  
>> common format if both are allowed.)
>
>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.

Note that e.g. RFC 3920 defines exactly this restriction.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email protected] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/