[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > While it might be possible to create an HTML-like specification in which > the markup and the content could potential be in different encodings (with > some constraints: you need to avoid byte sequences in content that can be > wrongly interpreted as markup), this is no the case for HTML or for XML: > the entire file, markup and content, must be in the same encoding. This is true for HTML, and true as far as it goes for XML. However, an XML document may contain multiple entities (files), and each of these can be in its own encoding. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
- Re: Benefits of Unicode Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: Benefits of Unicode Tex Texin
- Re: Benefits of Unicode Tex Texin
- Re: Benefits of Unicode Tex Texin
- Re: Benefits of Unicode Lukas Pietsch
- Re: Benefits of Unicode Tex Texin
- Re: Benefits of Unicode Peter_Constable
- Re: Benefits of Unicode Peter_Constable
- Re: Benefits of Unicode Mark Davis
- RE: Benefits of Unicode Richard, Francois M
- RE: Benefits of Unicode John Cowan
- RE: Benefits of Unicode Marco Cimarosti
- RE: Benefits of Unicode Marco Cimarosti
- RE: Benefits of Unicode Peter_Constable
- RE: Benefits of Unicode Jonathan Rosenne
- RE: Benefits of Unicode Thomas Chan
- RE: Benefits of Unicode Alistair Vining
- RE: Benefits of Unicode Murray Sargent
- RE: Benefits of Unicode Peter_Constable
- Re: Benefits of Unicode David Starner
- Re: Benefits of Unicode Thomas Chan