Andreas Jung schrieb:

--On 22. Juli 2006 15:34:01 +0200 Tino Wildenhain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Well, pagetemplate files are another thing. They have to deal with
the lack of charset information of a filesystem file and what they
do once they load the data is even another thing.

Even filesystem pagetemplates should work with unicode internal,
making it easy to recode them for output and combine with other
potentially unicode stuff.

huh?..even on the file system a pt file is encoded using some encoding.
For an XML pagetemplate file the encoding is clearly defined through the BOM (if available) and/or the XML preamble. So the most reliable solution would be to use XML PTs only.

Yes but you have to explicitely store that information "somehow" in the
file - zope objects can use other methods to transfer encoding information
while they create the internal representation.
meta-tags for charset are quite ugly but you basically have no other
choice with filesystem stuff.
Problem here if the various encoding notifications collide (XML header vs. XHTML meta-tag vs. BOM) so better have as few as possible - even better none when
we deal with HTTP-Servers which can nicely handle this all out of band
and on demand.

webdav or put can send charset data, zmi would use default-zpublisher-encoding
etc. If you store the internal object in unicode you can safely combine
different souces of encoded data instead of having a weird mesh of
decoding and encoding going on.

So I would not care how to find out about the intended encoding - once the
object is instantiated.

Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to