[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > My own experience with developers and encodings suggests to me that few > people are very well aware of anything. :-) To my mind, the really > regrettable problem is that Java chose, at some point in the misty past, to > part company with W3C, IETF and IANA and do its own thing with regard to > encoding names...
I'm guessing that it had something to do with the fact that Java uses that name to dynamically load the appropriate encoder/decoder. And a name with dashes in it just doesn't work very well. But this is just my theory. Also, the reason for this request is essentially moot anyway because the Java I18N library already has a mapping table for IANA names. (Older version of Java didn't have such a complete table, hence our use of the encoding map.) So users shouldn't have to use Java encoding names, anyway. > I am curious though as to why setting the > http://apache.org/xml/features/allow-java-encodings feature is such a > tremendous burden? By the logic in your note, surely no application using I also fail to see the reason why we should change the default behavior to accept Java encoding names. Xerces2 does not prevent anyone from using Java encoding names -- it only enforces a "best practice" of using IANA names by default. Neeraj, why are you pushing so hard for this? -- Andy Clark * [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
