RE: PIDF - using xml schema

On 22 April 2002 11:08, Graham Klyne wrote:
> 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.

That was my thought also favouring interop, with a slight reservation
that for some languages, UTF-8 might explode the data a little too much.

> 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.)

Thinking in terms of where we are with CPIM, etc. this sounds like a
valid argument. If we adopt this view, we should point out in the text
that protocol developers adopting this spec must make a conscious
decision about which character encoding(s) to allow and perhaps make a
recommendation behind UTF-8.

Adrian.




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