On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 15:44 -0700, bungi wrote: Not at present; if you need an XML file in a specific encoding you will need to use a tool to convert it. Why do you need iso-8859-1, out of curiousity? Most software supports UTF-8 these days. -mental

On 22/06/06, Spyros Blanas <sblanas@...400...> wrote: That is true, but I don't think that it was the OP's point. When writing out a 'code point' outside the range you gave, basically any extended Roman characters, multibyte characters and special symbols, there is a choice between using a numeric entity or unicode. For SGML it really makes no difference (and you could use named entities as well), but for XML you are better off using UTF8. Whilst I wouldn't know whether encouraging people to use ISO-8859-1 is actually a bad thing suggesting that the match between the first 127 code points justifies it, certainly is bad. Proper Unicode support is so important for any XML tool that I would go as far as to say it's the single most important criteria in tool selection. Do not use any XML tools that do not have solid Unicode support at the core. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/05/18/unicode.html See http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Unicode.html I am afraid that I carelessly omitted to send my first reply (which was similar to the two above) to the list, and so I repeat this URL for further info: http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl/characters.html , and add that you can probably achieve what you want by post-processing with XLST, indeed the first page on a basic Google search will give you 10 useful pages. If I have missed the intent of your question, or you are unhappy, please post again with any follow up points. Ben