- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: 07 Feb 2002 14:24:14 -0500
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 20:48, Tim Bray wrote: > As regards application/xml, application/*+xml, I think 3023 > is probably wrong and we should take stand that the server > SHOULD NOT send a charset header because > > (a) there's no transcoding, so the in-band signaling > mechanisms of XML work just fine, and so > (b) the recipient will have a much higher chance in almost > every case than the server of getting the encoding > right. As long as as that's SHOULD NOT, not MUST NOT, I can probably cope, but I'll admit to worrying that we've not seen the end of encoding debates. The prospect of encodings which complicate sniffing out the XML declaration (if one is even present - common practice, alas, often omits it even when required) does bother me for the long term. EBCDIC may yet have cousins. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 13:19:55 UTC