W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-125 charset-vs-quotes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:55:11 +0100
Message-ID: <4D80B32F.5050107@gmx.de>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 15.03.2011 16:13, Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...
> *** Decision of the Working Group ***
>
> Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the Change Proposal to
> change the note after "algorithm for extracting an encoding from
> a Content-Type" to not mention HTTP. Of the Change Proposals
> before us, this one has drawn the weaker objections.
> ...

Anne's proposal was 
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jan/0337.html>):

> Summary: Change the note after "algorithm for extracting an encoding from
> a Content-Type" to not mention HTTP as HTTP is not affected by this
> algorithm.
>
> Rationale: "algorithm for extracting an encoding from a Content-Type" is
> only used to examine the contents of a document and therefore does not
> affect HTTP. Claiming it a willful violation of HTTP is misleading.
>
> Details: Instead of saying this is a willful violation of HTTP say this is
> a distinct algorithm from HTTP Content-Type processing for usage outside
> of HTTP.

I'm ok with this text. However, the paragraphs we discuss still appear 
under "2.7.3 Determining the type of a resource", which starts with 
discussing determining the content-type, and that *does* include HTTP.

For clarify it would be good if the text under discussion would move to 
a separate subsection so that it is clear it's totally separate from the 
media type detection in 2.7.3.

Such as "2.7.4 Extracting encoding from a <meta> tag".

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 12:55:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC