'Re: [xml] "Control over encoding declaration (prolog and meta)"'

[Kasimier Buchcik <kbuchcik 4commerce de>]

Hi,

on 1/15/2004 6:06 PM Daniel Veillard wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 05:26:43PM +0100, Kasimier Buchcik wrote:
>
> > ----------
> > DOM 3 LS - LSSerializer.writeToString
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-DOM-Level-3-LS-20031107/load-save.html#LS-LSSerializer-writeToString
> >
> > The output is written to a DOMString that is returned to the caller 
> > (this method completely ignores all the encoding information available).
> > ----------
>
>
>    This is at best incomplete. Ignored in what sense ?

After a quite long time I received a final answer from the DOM group.
The declaration has to be "UTF-16" regardless of what 
Document.xmlEncoding is existent - so Igor's statement was correct.

The DOM group made the proposal to add the following to the DOM 3 LS 
specification (this is an excerpt from the proposal):

"When the encoding is UTF-16, whether or not the output is big-endian or
little-endian is implementation dependent, but a Byte Order Mark must be
generated for non-character outputs, such as LSOutput.byteStream or
LSOutput.systemId. If the Byte Order Mark is not generated, a
"byte-order-mark-needed" warning is reported. When the encoding is
UTF-16LS or UTF-16BE, the output is big-endian (UTF-16BE) or
little-endian (UTF-16LE) and the Byte Order Mark is not be generated. In
all case, the encoding declaration, if generated, will correspond to the
encoding used during the serialization (e.g. encoding="UTF-16" will
appear if UTF-16 was requested)."

> > > of a string containing a serialized document to be different of the
> > > real encoding of the document for braindead interface decision is
> > > where the stupidity lies. That's what must be fixed.
> >
> > Hmm, Daniel I guess you don't like the people to call your 
> > implementation "braindead", and I guess the DOM people don't like it either.
> >
> >
> > >  If DOM3 is stupid, get it fixed or don't use it, what else can I say ?
> >
> > :-) you know it's not *that* easy...
>
>
>   It is !
>   DOM 3 is not a REC, they are in the Candidate Recommendation phase,
> asking for implementor feedback. 
>   Stating that writeToString breaks normal XML serialization and makes it
> an implementation serious problem is correct feedback and they will have to
> reply to it before making progress !
>
>  Except the deadline is over :-(
>    "implementation feedbacks are welcome until 30 November 2003"

So at the end it was me who was braindead about thinking that the 
declaration has to be different from UTF-16 ;-)
All I have to do is to serialize to UTF-16 and strip off the BOM, since 
the DOMString has no BOM.


Greetings,

Kasimier