From: Bob Hutchison <hutch@...>
Date: 2001-11-12T21:32:48+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:24923] Re: XML libraries (Re:  Re: ruby and	webservices)

On 01/11/11 8:52 PM, "Sean Russell" <ser@efn.org> wrote:

> Bob Hutchison wrote:
> 
>> Yes, but not quite as bad as it seems at first. All you have to do is
>> *read* UTF-8 and UTF-16, you do not have to use either character encoding
>> internally and you can output any encoding you like (though to be safe you
> 
> How can you possibly read UTF-16 and not be able to write it back out.

By converting UTF-16 to some other encoding immediately. UTF-16 does not
need to be the internal encoding -- your programming environment doesn't
have to work with everything just one encoding (and the point is that
whatever that might be it should cover the basics; 7 or 8 bit ASCII does
not). If it isn't the internal encoding, then you have to convert from the
internal to UTF-16 on output. If you didn't provide that conversion
capability then... Now *why* wouldn't you is a completely different question
and I can't think of a good reason other than timing (other things might
take priority but sooner or later a conversion will be possible; someone
with get fed up and just do it).

> Further, you have to be able to give it to the User in some useable format.

Do you mean the Ruby program? I'm not sure who/what you mean here.

> Not all UTF-16 maps to UTF-8, so I don't see a read-only implementation as
> a solution.  For me, the XML read-write operations must be XML reflexive.

Are you sure about that first part? All XML implementations are supposed to
read UTF-8 and UTF-16, so writing UTF-8 only, for example, allows your
output to communicate with any XML implementation. If what you mean by
reflexive is for a ruby program to participate in a stream or succession of
different XML processors then this is all that is needed.

Bob