W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:31:58 +0100
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <foa2vn$v2m$1@ger.gmane.org>

Henrik Nordström wrote:

> I also support removing the strict default ISO-8859-1 charset
> from HTTP text/* types, downgrading it to just a mere suggestion
> that if there is no charset information available then a good
> guess for the text/* types is ISO-8859-1 for historical reasons.

Apparently all agreed that the "strict default Latin-1" should go.
One way to to handle this situation is to do whatever MIME and 
the specification of the Content-Type (if given) offer, and for
historical reasons "Latin-1" can be a good guess.

In theory.  But unsurprisingly the HTML5 draft tells us that it
is in practice often not good enough.  Often "wannabe Latin-1"
turns out to be "windows-1252".  If you want to suggest a "best
guess" in the HTTP spec. for historical reasons please mention
windows-1252, it is an important difference for some documents:

Latin-1 C1 controls may be not permitted, and windows-1252 0x80
is the only (*) backwards compatible way to say €.  

While that's IMO irrelevant for HTTP, if you decide to talk about
it anyway let's get it right:  Latin-1 is a "historical" charset,
windows-1252 is the "real" legacy.


*: Agents knowing Latin-9 etc. would also know Unicode or &euro;
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 16:31:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC