Ka-Ping Yee wrote: > >... > > Eek indeed. I'm tempted to suggest we drop the multiple-encoding > issue (i can hear the screams now). The XML rule is one encoding per file. One thing that I think that they did innovate in (I had nothing to do with that part) is that entities encoded in something other than UTF-8 or UTF-16 must start with the declaration: "<?xml encoding='utf-8'?>". This has two benefits: By looking at the first four bytes of the file we can differentiate between several different encoding "families" (Shift-JIS-like, UTF-8-like, UTF-16-like, ...) and then we can tell the *precise* encoding by looking at the encoding attribute. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself "Ivory towers are no longer in order. We need ivory networks. Today, sitting quietly and thinking is the world's greatest generator of wealth and prosperity." - http://www.bespoke.org/viridian/print.asp?t=140
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4