Jill Ramonsky wrote: > First point - if no information is present, assume "us-ascii". > Sounds extremely sensible to me.
Sounds very misguided to me. > ASCII is the intersection of Latin-1, UTF-8, and various other > commonly used encodings. How does that make it more likely that guessing ASCII would be correct? > Moreover, in order to even read the name of the encoding, the > name of the encoding must have itself been encoded in something. See Appendix F of the XML spec for how you can do much better than assuming ASCII to read the encoding name. > It makes sense to me to assume the absolute minimum. If you want > more than the minimum, declare your encoding. This should not be > a problem. It makes much more sense to me to assume UTF-8, as XML does. If you want *less* than that, declare your encoding. This is not a problem. -- Fran�ois
