W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > June 1997

Re: Comments on Part 1: Encoding declaration

From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@eps.inso.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:48:52 -0400
Message-Id: <199706031648.MAA07434@nathaniel.ebt>
To: ricko@allette.com.au
CC: murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
>> I would say that things like HTTP charset labelling should override
>> all of the above.
>
>Chicken and egg, maybe.  The HTTP server has to detect which
>character set,  since a given system may have files of several
>different charsets sitting on it. 
>
>What method will it use?:
>
>A) It will use an XML decision-tree like the one above, in which case the
>HTTP charset should override everything.
>
>B) It will just use spew out some charset parameter based on locale
>or something less than XML.  In which case the HTTP charset should
>not override anything, but be the initial default.
>
>What do think the chances are?  I think B is more likely/prudent.

Interestingly, there is increasing support for *correct* server
labelling. In the immediate future, (B) is a more likely scenario,
simply because admin folks either are 1) lazy, or 2) ignorant. This is
changing. Even today, you can configure a server to correctly label
things. I expect that as the metadata work proceeds, we'll see more
and better solutions.

The fact that current practise is less than ideal doesn't argue for
making the specification less than ideal...
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 1997 12:49:41 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:39 EDT