On Tuesday 27 November 2001 02:16, you wrote: > > I don't think the XML standard assumes data would be unchanged. XML tools > > work from the XML InfoSet, not the literal data in the file. You could > > have everything in CDATA sections, or everything qouted, and tools that > > properly use the XML API (be it SAX or the DOM) can't and shouldn't be > > able to tell the difference. > > I mean that we can't simply replace ]]> by its &symbol;-based variant > because this sequence might already be in the data and restoration of ]]> > will lead to data corruption (as opposed to unescaping). This means that > we have to implement full XML-aware escaping mechanism for all the data > going as 'string/text' types into XML file (in terms of Repligard data > types).
Yes. > This is serious change and I can't say how it is safe to do now, > especially given that output encoding is dictated now by a SQL server and > thus additional conversion to UTF-8 before the transformation would be > desirable to avoid unpredicted side effects of the transformation. I don't know about what UTF-8 safeness would mean in practice. Emile --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
