There is a related FAQ entry: http://forrest.apache.org/0.7/docs/faq.html#encoding
Johannes
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?
-- Ferdinand Soethe
--
User Interface Design GmbH * Teinacher Str. 38 * D-71634 Ludwigsburg
Fon +49 (0)7141 377 000 * Fax +49 (0)7141 377 00-99
Gesch�ftsstelle: User Interface Design GmbH * Lehrer-G�tz-Weg 11 * D-81825 M�nchen
www.uidesign.de
Buch "User Interface Tuning" von Joachim Machate & Michael Burmester
www.user-interface-tuning.de
