W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2000

Re: XHTML and charset's [was: Re: XHTML questions]

From: Christian Smith <csmith@barebones.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:30:14 -0400
To: www-html@w3.org
cc: Chris Croome <chris@webarchitects.co.uk>
Message-ID: <auto-000000466683@barebones.com>
On Wednesday, June 28, 2000 at 14:43, chris@webarchitects.co.uk (Chris Croome) wrote:

> I'm still confused by all of this...
> As an experiment I have set up this page:
> http://c.croome.net/ 
> to be served as UTF-8 and the same page at this address:
> http://chris.croome.net/
> to be served as ISO-8859-1
> Both are valid XHTML according to the WDG and W3 validators, 

<span class="broken_record">
	While the WDG validator can and does validate XHTML, the W3C
	validator currently only does a well-formedness check.

> however both are invalid on this XML validator:
> http://www.stg.brown.edu/service/xmlvalid/

I think there is a problem with this validator. It doesn't seem to like
the XHTML 1.0 DTD.

> I have tested the pages in Netscape 3, 4 and 6 in X11 and everything is
> fine (apart from the fact that in NN4 you get different fonts with the
> different encodings!) and they are also OK in Lynx and in MSIE4 and
> MSIE5 on windoze...
> Is there any drawback to using UTF-8 for some browsers/platforms?

Certainly. Some browsers may not support UTF-8 (but all modern ones do).

> And why isn't this page valid XML?

It is as near as I can tell.

Christian Smith  |  csmith@barebones.com  |  http://web.barebones.com
PGP Fingerprint  -  60E5 2216 97D2 1D1A B923 F036 00A9 CEC0 D411 FA89
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2000 04:30:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:54 UTC