[BXXPwg] Draft Minutes of last week's meeting

Dale Hunscher dale@supportability.com
Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:52:31 -0700

Was there any discussion around using the XML Declaration to specify
the encoding? I can see how a Content-Type header should _override_
any encoding specified in an XML Declaration (as suggested the the XML
spec.), but I can't see why a Content-Type header should be necessary
when the XML Declaration is accurate. The "Annotated XML Spec."
describes a scenario where a document's XML Declaration may specify
one encoding, but the document gets transcoded by a delivering Web
server. In that case, the payload should be annotated with a
Content-Type header specifying the actual encoding, and that
externally-specified encoding should be handed to the consuming
parser, thus overriding the encoding mentioned in the document's XML
Declaration. If the encoding isn't changed, though, no encoding need
be mentioned in the MIME header.

Not every parser has a way to handle an overriding encoding... IMO if the
coding is changed, the XML header should be updated to accurately reflect
the document's content.

Personally I think the simplest way of handling this is to put the burden on
the serializer of the BEEP message sender to encode in UTF-8. UTF-16 is
easily transformed to UTF-8 and back without loss of information. This way a
BEEP agent on a minimal device can just deal in UTF-8 and not worry about
encodings. Agents that want to pass UTF-16 up to their translation layer can
translate messages back to UTF-16 on the way up and out.

Dale Hunscher
South Wind Design, Inc.