W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2004

Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: image/svg+xml;charset=""

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:19:20 +0100
Message-ID: <1861414091.20041125141920@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <www-svg@w3.org>

On Thursday, November 25, 2004, 1:30:07 PM, Anne wrote:

AvK> Chris Lilley wrote:
>> AvK> Because it has a BOM before the start of the document
>> You mean, it has one and is thus UTF-16 (what the spec says) or , it has
>> one and is still UTF-8 (what you said)?

AvK> I never said that. Anyway, it's UTF-16.

>> AvK> where your example does not? Quite obvious IMHO.
>> Of course mine does, as I said, the following content, encoded in UTF 16
>> thus it has one.

AvK> That's not true. You can have UTF-16 or UTF-8 content for that matter
AvK> without a BOM.

Um, leaving aside UTF-8, and noting that UTF-16 is not the same as
UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE, please justify this statement with reference toa
named portion of a specification.

Isn't this straying rather far away from the registration of the SVG
media type? Your original assertion that in the absence of a charset
parameter all +xml content defaults to UTF-8 having been proven false, I
am not really sure where this particular sub-thread is leading.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Thursday, 25 November 2004 13:19:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:01 UTC