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

[Igor Zlatkovic <igor zlatkovic com>]

Kasimier Buchcik wrote:
> Ok, this issue is DOM 3 related. As you might remember I'm still 
> struggeling with "to DOMString serialization" and "from DOMString 
> parsing", which has to be always UTF-16 encoded, regardless of the 
> content; so if I have e.g. an ISO-8859-1 document I still need it to be 
> serialized to UTF-16, but it still *has to* contain an encoding 
> declaration of ISO-8859-1. It sounds like no big deal, but if I don't 
> have control over both, the target encoding and the declared encoding, I 
> can't fullfill the requirements of the DOM 3 spec.

You want to put the serialised data in a DOMString? Having a document as 
it would be on the permanent storage, verbatim, in a DOMString? Why in 
the name of God would you ever want to do this? DOM is there to access 
parsed data, not serialised data, no?

> Finally I must admit that there would be a workaround for me: I could
> serialize with the existing API, then encode to UTF-16LE. But since we
> are using quite huge documents, I guess it will not acceptable in
> matters of performance and seems rather stupid.

You have huge documents and want to put them in a DOMString, unparsed. A 
DOMString is an object instance which exists in computer's RAM, no? If 
those documents fit in RAM, then how huge can they be?

I don't see a problem in post-recoding here, putting serialised data in 
a DOMString instance sounds a much worse idea. What are you trying to 
do? Perhaps there is a better solution.

Ciao,
Igor