Re: [PATCH] characters invalid for an encoding

[Steve Quint]

I must first profess that I'm not very smart, and reading the XML 
"recommendation" on W3C makes my head spin.  My apologies if my 
interpretation of this "recommendation" is wrong.

At 4:45 PM -0700 5/3/05, Daniel Rall wrote:
Hi Steve, can you elaborate on this?  Both the XML RFCs and certain
encodings dictate what constitutes valid content, and how content must
be represented.  For instance, certain multi-byte characters simply
aren't representable in 7 bit encoding like ASCII -- the only way to
deliver'em through an ASCII encoding is to use another encoding which
can be represented in ASCII (e.g. base-64).

I don't follow you.  The XML-RPC spec itself used to dictate that the
XML payload must be ASCII.  That changed only recently.
Unless I'm missing something, can't any multi-byte character be 
represented using entity encoding.  Why is this operation reserved 
for UTF-8 and UTF-16?

--
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------
"Always ... always remember: Less is less. More is more. More is
better. And twice as much is good too. Not enough is bad. And too
much is never enough except when it's just about right."
                        -- The Tick
------------------------------------------------------------