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

Re: Comments on Part 1: Encoding declaration

From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 03:13:21 +1000
Message-Id: <199706031717.DAA26499@jawa.chilli.net.au>
To: "Gavin Nicol" <gtn@eps.inso.com>
Cc: <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>, <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
 > From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@eps.inso.com>
 
> 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.

You haven't answered my point, which that a server needs some strategy 
to detect charset if it holds files of more than one charset. I don't think a 
server has the time to go through the whole XML detection process if it
is sending out thousands of files: it will use some sub-XML heuristic. So the
client-side detection of charset using the XML chain will always be more
reliable.  

I don't think it is a problem of ignorance or laziness, but of minimising the
processing done by servers.

> The fact that current practise is less than ideal doesn't argue for
> making the specification less than ideal...

Yes it does, because we want it to work!  

Rick Jelliffe
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 1997 13:17:20 EDT

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