W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [css3-syntax][css21] More problems with determining the character encoding

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:56:46 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJQvAudC322C71hoanPYcJ12OdXKBEeQ_VSQDxCXt3csR8tv3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>  * Please prohibit authors from using and implementations from
>> supporting encodings that are not in the Encoding Standard.
>
> Can't prohibit author behavior. Can only say what to do if author does
> something you don't like.

You can also define the artifacts resulting from certain author
behavior as non-conforming.

>> (http://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/) If normatively referencing the
>> Encoding Standard is politically or procedurally infeasible, please at
>> least prohibit implementations from supporting non-ASCII-compatible
>> encodings other than variants of UTF-16.
>
> Can't prohibit implementations from supporting whatever they like.

I meant defining implementations that support encodings not listed in
the Encoding Standard as non-conforming.

> Can't ban author or implementation behavior. Can only define what to do when
> behavior is conformant or not.

Right.

>>  * If there is no BOM, no @charset, no HTTP-level charset and no
>> charset attribute on the linking element, and the encoding of the
>> referring document or style sheet is ASCII-compatible, please define
>> that the encoding is inherited from the referrer. If the encoding of
>> the referrer is UTF-16, please define that the inherited encoding is
>> UTF-8.
>
> That makes non sense There is no relationship between the encoding of a
> referring document and a referenced document.

Inheriting the encoding is existing implementation behavior.

>>  * Please make the encoding declared using @charset have no effect
>> unless the string "@charset" is represented as its ASCII bytes.
>
> If CSS2.1 already defines behavior for a BOMless interpretation of the
> encoding of @charset that allows inferring encoding, then that definition
> should be maintained, not removed.

Even when the result is known to be non-sensical?

>>  * If it is determined that supporting BOMless UTF-16 that has
>> @charset is needed for Web compatibility, please base the sniffing on
>> the 0x00 bytes intertwined in "@charset" and not on whatever follows
>> "@charset".
>
> What is your rationale for this constraint?

If whatever follows @charset is not an UTF-16 label, honoring the
label makes @charset itself makes decode into a sequence of characters
that are non-conforming in CSS.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 12:57:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT