Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4280D722.7030205@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:45:38 +0100
From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: Encoding-atribute in site.xml (copied from user list)
References: <799261652.20050509201636@hellyfant.de>
 <427FBCF9.7070404@apache.org> <1091436987.20050510072145@soethe.net>
 <42809305.6070703@apache.org> <1083425894.20050510141222@soethe.net>
In-Reply-To: <1083425894.20050510141222@soethe.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> 
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
> RG> Since the template files do use UTF-8 it makes sense for them to be
> RG> defined as using UTF-8.
> 
> Agreed. No harm done in making it explicit.
> 
> RG> No it is not an editor problem. In the absence of an encoding attribute
> RG> the editor will assume a certain type of encoding. What this assumption
> RG> is would be dependant on the local settings of the editor (in some cases
> RG> this means the settings of the Operating System).
> 
> Just for the sake of the argument :-)
> 
> I just looked this up in some of my references and they
> state that an xml-file without encoding attribute is utf-8 or
> utf-16 (depending on the byte order mark).
> 
> Which to me means that xml-editors that assume something else are not
> conforming to the xml-standards. Or am I missing something?

No it might well have been me that was missing something.

Nevertheless, there is no harm in having the encoding present, even if 
it is a problem with editors.

Ross