Re: PIDF - using xml schema

Speaking for myself, I supported the idea of mandating use of UTF-8 because 
I couldn't really see any value for allowing any other charset encoding in 
PIDF defined as part of a protocol suite, and minimizing the choices seems 
to be a better bet for promoting interoperability.  I am open to arguments 
why formats other than UTF-8 should be allowed in the presence protocol 
payload.

Maybe this document is not the right place to mandate use of UTF-8?  Maybe, 
the protocol/service document that says use to this XML format should also 
say that UTF-8 coding is required?  This would leave the PIDF specification 
free to be used as a generic XML format in other contexts with possibly 
different requirements?   (Just a thought.)

#g
--

At 06:47 PM 4/22/02 +0900, Hiroyasu Sugano wrote:
> > > >* draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-02.txt:Section 3.1
> > > >
> > > >I think we should change this to REQUIRE an XML declaration. We
> > > >should
> > > >mandate the use of UTF-8 and recommend that the encoding attribute
> > > >SHOULD be used to explicitly note the use of UTF-8.
> > >
> > > I'm not up to speed on the detail issues here, but the XML declaration
> > > seems to me rather like excess baggage.  I have a (weak) preference to
> > go
> > > the other way; i.e. prohibit it.  (xml-guidelines say to be explicit,
> > > IIRC.)  As for mandating UTF-8, I agree.
> >
> > The text that suggested to me that we should have it is:
> >
> >    In other cases, the XML is a larger component which may
> >    find its way alone as an external entity body, transported as a MIME
> >    message.  In those cases, the XML declaration is an important marker
> >    and useful for reliability and extensibility.
>
>What do you mean by "We should mandate the use of UTF-8"?
>
>Because PIDF is encoded in XML, all the processor for PIDF MUST be able to
>handle UTF-8.  Also, XML allows other encodings by specifying it explicitly.
>So, I agree that we should be explicit that all the implementation is 
>mandated to
>understand UTF-8.  But, I you are saying other encoding should not be allowed,
>I would object.  I hope hot.
>
>As for mandating the XML declarations, I would second Adrian's opnion because
>it makes the XML document self-contained.  I think this is a desirable 
>feature
>because presence information documents may be stored and reused by some
>implementations.

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<[email protected]>



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]