On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:41:20PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:55:09AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > And the XML spec says in substance that if the encoding is UTF-8 or > > UTF-16, you don't need an encoding declaration. > > I understand this. That's why it's a should, not a must. It's just > making it more explicit. > > > Is there a hidden problem you're not mentioning and you are trying to > > solve? > > Not really. The only perk is that it makes text (that is, XML-unaware) > comparisons work a little better when comparing them with the output of > Xalan (and Saxon), which I often do to test my stylesheet code. > > If you decide that you don't want to implement this, that's okay. I > figured it was an improvement overall with no real downsides and > something that it would take me all of fifteen minutes to fix, so I did > it.
I'm not really intested in diverging from upstream for such matters, and I'm not really convinced upstream would take it for the same reason I wouldn't. But please feel free to make your case on [email protected]. Cheers, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
