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

Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:42:04 +0100
Message-ID: <47B1CC5C.7060100@gmx.de>
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12 Feb 2008, at 14:03, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> HTTP/1.1 recipients MUST respect the charset label provided by the 
>> sender; and those user agents that have a provision to "guess" a 
>> charset MUST use the charset from the content-type field if they 
>> support that charset, rather than the recipient's preference, when 
>> initially displaying a document.
> 
> Does this mean using US-ASCII for text/xml without an explicit charset? 

It means whatever the other specifications say about that (e.g., RFC2046 
and RFC3023).

> I read it as meaning so (as by omitting it you have implicitly sent a 
> US-ASCII charset label).

Yes. So HTTP/1.1 doesn't specify a default anymore, but there are 
defaults specified somewhere else.

> If you really want to require such a thing it is worth noting that it is 
> extremely unlikely that any major HTTP implementation will actually 
> abide by what 2616bis requires (therefore making the major 
> implementations non-conforming). Do you really want to write a spec. 
> with  couple of academic/experimental implementations, and nothing else? 
> Surely it'd be more useful to specify HTTP in such a way that the major 
> implementations can actually abide by the specification (while meeting 
> market demands)?

Did you follow the long discussion leading to this change?

The reason we are making a change is that user agents indeed do *not* do 
what RFC2616 said. Thus we're removing that specific requirement. IMHO.

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 16:50:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:36 GMT