>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>Although XMLCh is UTF-16, I believe the transcoding routines make a
>>>point of escaping reserved characters like "<" to "<", so the two
>>>string formats you mention are not interchangeable.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Those characters are not escaped during transcoding. They woul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although XMLCh is UTF-16, I believe the transcoding routines make a
point of escaping reserved characters like "<" to "<", so the two
string formats you mention are not interchangeable.
Those characters are not escaped during transcoding. They would only be
escaped w
19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: String handling best practice
> Although XMLCh is UTF-16, I believe the transcoding routines make a
> point of escaping reserved characters like "<" to "<", so the two
> string formats you mention are not interchangeable.
> Although XMLCh is UTF-16, I believe the transcoding routines make a
> point of escaping reserved characters like "<" to "<", so the two
> string formats you mention are not interchangeable.
Those characters are not escaped during transcoding. They would only be
escaped when generating markup.
From: Scott Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 9:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: String handling best practice
I'm about to start work on a application using Xerces. The problem is, I
don't know how best to go about handling strings. Should I use the
I'm about to start work on a application using Xerces. The problem is, I
don't know how best to go about handling strings. Should I use the
XMLString class or would I be better off using ICU's UnicodeString?
If I do use ICU's classes can I work on the assumtion that XMLCh* equals
UChar* (They'r
