Am Dienstag 06 März 2007 10:53 schrieb Daniel Leidert: > > is there any reason why ISO-8859-1 is enforces and entities used for > > everything that does not fit in? > > You should ask docbook-xsl upstream. > > > Why isn't the encoding of the XML file used? It has to fit anyway and > > makes the output much more readable! > > Simply: It's impossible. Read > http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/OutputEncoding.html: <cite>[..] That > is because the XML specification does not permit the encoding attribute > to be a variable or parameter value [..]</cite> > > > I assume you agree that forcing ISO-8859-1 does not make much sense with > > UTF-8 input (except for some countries). > > You can choose an UTF-8 encoding for output using the xsl:output > template or the chunker.output.encoding parameter in a custom stylesheet > or via the -m option of xmlto (see also > http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/OutputEncoding.html). > > IIRC there were reasons, why ISO-8859-1 was used. But I cannot remember > atm. However, I don't see a bug here. Therefor I'm going to close this > report now. Feel free to comment this decision or reopen it.
ISO-8859-1 is not suitable for automatic processing. AFAIK they argued with old browser that do not understand UTF-8. What a lame excuse, though :-( The XHTML output has UTF-8, IIRC. BTW: same goes for manpage export. Here, man is definitely broken, though (truncates manpages with UTF-8 even in an UTF-8 locale). Working with custom stylesheets is possible but NOT the solution: just imagine that everyone puts out his own stylesheets just for a sane character set! That's insane and just produces lots of duplicate stuff along with lots of broken stuff :-( HS
