W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2006

Re: HTML 4.01: Char encoding defaults for external scripts?

From: Claudio Pellegrino <cloaked01@claudio-pellegrino.de>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:20:33 +0100
Message-Id: <89712AB5-51CD-4AEA-8A3F-4B82B489A657@claudio-pellegrino.de>
To: www-html@w3.org

Hello, David!


>> Hmm yes, this seems redundant in a way.
>> However, I am strongly convinced that the reason to introduce the
>> HTML attribute was to give authors a "syntactically cleaner" way to
>> specify their character encoding.
>>
>
> I would say there were a couple of reasons:
>
> 1) documents may be served by protocols, e.g. direct file access,  
> which
> do not carry character set metadata.
>
> 2) most people learn HTML on servers where the ability to configure  
> the
> server is blocked for commercial, or, maybe, security reasons. []
>

Sorry  my comment was indeed a bit ambiguous. Allow me to clarify.

James was wondering why (in HTML) there is a separate "charset"  
attribute:

 > [script type="text/foo" charset="UTF-8" src="ext.js"][/script]

while according to his interpretation, RFC 2046 (hence, also HTML  
4.01) seems to literally *demand* instead:

 > [script type="text/foo; charset=UTF-8" src="ext.js"][/script]


Responding to that, I was trying to say:
I am convinced both are semantically equivalent, and it seems to me  
that the HTML working group introduced the former variant just as a  
"cleaner" way of expressing the latter.

Of course, you are right with what you wrote about protocol header  
attributes. Sorry again.


Regards,
Claudio Pellegrino
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 10:20:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:08 GMT