W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-charsets@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: ignore dashes etc. (was Registration of new charset GB18030 (fwd))

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 01:27:00 +0900
To: ned.freed@mrochek.com
Cc: Mark Davis <mark.davis@us.ibm.com>, charsets <ietf-charsets@iana.org>, Markus Scherer <markus.scherer@jtcsv.com>
Message-id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020722012537.04020598@localhost>

Very sorry for the confusion.

At 22:47 02/07/20 -0700, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:
>>At 20:41 02/07/18 -0700, Mark Davis wrote:
>
>> >And what harm does it do, to make the name matching case-insensitive --
>> >especially since a great many implementations do that anyway?
>
>>Case-insensitive matching doesn't harm,

I was right up to here.


>>as 'charset' matching was
>>always case sensitive in the specs and in all implementations.

sensitive -> insensitive! Very sorry for this typo.

Regards,    Martin.


>I don't know where you got this idea, but it simply isn't true. RFC 2046
>section 4.1.2 is quite clear on the matter:
>
>  Unlike some other parameter values, the values of the charset parameter 
> are NOT
>  case sensitive.
>
>I also can assure you that various cases of US-ASCII, Iso-8859-1, and
>numerous other charsets are routinely used in practice.
>
>Now, it is true that RFC 2278 doesn't come out and say that all charset values
>are case-insensitive. And this should probably be clarified. But it is a heck
>of a stretch to infer that they are case sensitive given that the subset
>intended for use in MIME most definitely are not. (This last point is actually
>reiterated in the ABNF in RFC 2978 section 2.3.)
>
>                                 Ned
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2002 12:40:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 June 2006 15:10:53 GMT