- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 11:32:58 -0500
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 16:33:36 UTC
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > In the example you give, there is consistency between the content metadata > (charset param) and the content itself (as determined by sniffing). So why > would both the metadata and content be ignored? Because in the real world, UTF-32 isn't a transfer encoding. Browsers shouldn't have to waste time supporting it, and if someone accidentally creates content in that encoding somehow, it should be immediately clear that something is wrong. It would take a major disconnect from reality to insist that browsers support UTF-32. > In any case, what is suggested below would be a direct violation of [2] as well. > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C030 No, it wouldn't. That doesn't say that UTF-32 must be recognized. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 16:33:36 UTC