OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-c-cpp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [sca-c-cpp] NEW ISSUE: XML Snippets should not contain encodingdeclaration.



This issue has been assigned id CCPP-88 by the Jira system.

See http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/CCPP-88

Andrew

____________________________________________________________

Andrew Borley
Websphere ESB Development
Tel: 245393 Ext: +44 (0) 1962 815393 Mob: +44 (0) 7971 805547
E-mail: borley@uk.ibm.com
Mailpoint 211, IBM (UK) Ltd, Hursley Park, Winchester, Hants, SO21 2JN
____________________________________________________________



From: Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>
To: sca-c-cpp@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 20/07/2009 16:01
Subject: [sca-c-cpp] NEW ISSUE: XML Snippets should not contain encoding declaration.






Target: C++ C&I spec and C C&I spec CD03 Rev 2 of both


Description:

Here is a excerpt of an exchanged that took place in the Bindings TC.  The points being made are applicable to our specs as well.


But of more important, as a general rule, I don't think we should include encoding in inlined text examples in any of our specs. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
XML files without encoding attribute on the XML declaration is valid and usually not necessary especially when BOM takes care of it.


I agree, we could have just removed the entire line and it wouldn't harm the example. The fact that it was an example may lead someone to copy/paste it and then later get surprised by the encoding as they modify it. If the line is there, I think it's a better practice to make it portable.

I agree that encoding="ASCII" in our examples is a bad idea. But it should not be assumed that sticking UTF-8 necessarily solves all the problems of cut-paste-edit. The editor used may not recognize the XML encoding attribute (or is it pseudo-attribute?) and may save it in a non-UTF8 format. This (UTF-16) is actually not uncommon for say Japanese characters, where UTF-16 is preferred as it results in a smaller disk size for the file. If portability is a concern *and* if the XML decl is to be retained, we should not include the encoding pseudo-attribute at all. The assumption here being that in the cut-paste-edit scenario the editor would do the Right Thing wrt byte-order marks. I think this is a safer assumption.


Note the suggestion in the second paragraph.


Proposal:

Remove lines of the form:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="..."?> from all snippets

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com








Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU








[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]