W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2003

RE: Requesting a revision of RFC3023

From: Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:04:12 -0400
Message-ID: <F7D4BDA0E5A1D14B99D32C022AEB73660EB37B@alis-2k.alis.domain>
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>

Tim Bray wrote:
> I took an action item to ask about the chances of revising what 3023 
> says about the charset parameter; while I'm not sure, I suspect that 
> there may actually be some level of consensus about the 
> desirable changes:

Quite possible.

> 1. Deprecate text/* for anything that's in XML.

Yes, please!

> 2. Deprecate the charset parameter for application/xml and 
> application/*+xml.

This would hurt some legitimate (but probably rare, perhaps unimportant) use
cases where:

1) a server generates some XML without an encoding decl, knowing that it
will send an authoritative charset parameter, or

2) a proxy transcodes an XML entity without fixing the encoding decl
therein,  knowing that it will send an authoritative charset parameter.

I'm not saying this kills the proposal, just that it needs to be weighed in.
Perhaps it will make the difference between "deprecate", "outlaw" or various
strengths of "discourage".

> For the server, on the other hand, 
> this is easy to get wrong, particularly with the introduction 
> of various kinds of filters in modern web servers.

No need to invoke filters, older and simpler servers are known historically
to get it wrong most of the time.

> it should be made clear that nobody sending a media-type 
> should send a charset for an XML media-type unless it REALLY REALLY KNOWS
what it's 
> sending, and in that case should consider not sending it anyhow.

Yes.

-- 
François Yergeau
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 14:05:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:20 GMT