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
