W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:13:31 +0100
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.v847ottn64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:58:07 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>  
wrote:
> * Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Other than XML, is there a precedent for using "encoding"? Most places  
>> use "charset" I think (HTTP, CSS, HTML).
>
> DOM Level 3 Core uses xmlEncoding and inputEncoding, XSLT uses output-
> encoding, .NET uses System.Text.Encoding.*, Google search uses "ie" and
> "oe" parameters indicating "encoding", ... It seems unlikely you could
> make a sensible argument about usage (outside the context of HTTP
> headers, which includes "HTML") to choose one over the other here.

Well, CSS has @charset, and HTML has a charset attribute. And xmlEncoding  
and inputEncoding are on their way out. I think it would make more sense  
to keep using charset as a keyword.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 4 February 2012 07:14:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:54 GMT