Walter Dörwald wrote: > Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>>> Yes, an XML parser should be able to use UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32, etc >>>> codecs to do the encoding. There's no need to create a magical >>>> mystery codec to pick out which though. >>> So the code is good, if it is inside an XML parser, and it's bad if it >>> is inside a codec? >> Exactly so. This functionality just *isn't* a codec - there is no >> encoding. Instead, it is an algorithm for *detecting* an encoding. > > And what do you do once you've detected the encoding? You decode the > input, so why not combine both into an XML decoder? In fact, we already have such a codec. The utf-16 decoder looks at the first two bytes and then decides to forward the rest to either a utf-16-be or a utf-16-le decoder. Servus, Walter
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