W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2007

RE: http charset, <script> and IE

From: tex <tex@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:41:56 -0700
To: "'CE Whitehead'" <cewcathar@hotmail.com>, <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003e01c7d231$aad4ed20$0500a8c0@ds.corp.yahoo.com>

Hi,
To be clear, the BOM is not the only way to declare an encoding, so BOM is
not the issue.

As for the argument that not everyone has a Unicode editor (online or
offline), c'mon this is 2007.
Nobody has to use a legacy editor. They may choose to, but they don't have
to.

Anyway, I'd like to focus on getting a recommendation for having IE respect
the http protocol.

Perhaps a recommendation would be to have Javascript have a meta-statement
or pragma to declare the encoding of the .js file within the file, like
html, css et all do. (It doesn't have one AFAIK, but I don't work a lot with
JS.)

tex
 
><rant on>
>The concept of declaring encodings in the retrieving page rather than 
>the retrieved page is brain-dead if you ask me and should be stricken 
>from specs.
>Authors and Pubishers should declare the encoding. (And it should be
>unicode.)
>
That's an ideal to shoot for--most versions of notepad out today will encode
files as utf-8; but not everyone has editors for unicode that do not put a
bom in files and I do not think we can expect them to have these.
Also I have to tell you, some online text editors, for file creation, do not
encode unicode characters.
That's life.  Wish they'd all upgrade.
But some people have to use those so alas not every file will be unicode,
but I do agree, the authors and applications that create pages should
declare the encoding.

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2007 22:42:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:14 GMT