W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Embarrassing typo!

From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:38:51 +0200
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
cc: "'gerald et al.'" <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010421164359-b01010701-99addece@192.168.1.6>
On 20.04.01 at 23:09, Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com> wrote:

>On 20.04.01 at 22:31, Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov> wrote:
>
>>Terje:  I assume you don't mind two copies?

Nope. I like to think I have better filters then Gerald -- he uses some
dinky UNIX mailer while I use the email client for _real_ men: Mailsmith
from Bare Bones Software <URL:http://www.barebones.com/> on Mac OS :-) --
but I probably just have more time to burn. :-|


>>[...] The W3C validator doesn't support [iso-8859-1-Windows-3.1-Latin-1]
>>and erroneous reports a "fatal error". That charset is valid and
>>registered, reference [IANA].
>
>I'm not sure what the charset "iso-8859-1-Windows-3.1-Latin-1" really is.
>Because it was registered at IANA and "windows-1252" was not, many people
>believed that "iso-8859-1-Windows-3.1-Latin-1" was the official name for
>"windows-1252".  I'm not sure if this belief is really correct, especially
>since "windows-1252" has since been registered separately at IANA.
>
>The WDG HTML Validator treats "iso-8859-1-Windows-3.1-Latin-1" as an alias
>for "windows-1252" at the moment, but I may remove
>"iso-8859-1-Windows-3.1-Latin-1" support altogether since I'm not sure
>that it is equivalent to windows-1252.

I'm thinking I'll add it. I need to make a general charset-aliasing
function and this might make a good test case. Since I don't forsee any
problems with making iso-8859-1-Windows-3.1-Latin-1 an alias for
windows-1252 I might as well put it in and leave it there.

That charset is _definitely_ not widely used and I think treating it
(perhaps erroneously) as an alias for windows-1252 is less destructive then
reporting a fatal error. I've been meaning to write some documentation
reccomending UTF-8 in any case. :-)

(
    BTW, does anyone know where Jukka's writings are at these days
    (post hut.fi)? Didn't he have some fairly comprehensive writings
    on charset issues?
)


More worrying is the fact that we don't catch ISO-8859-1 in documents
labelled as US-ASCII (see TODO #1 <URL:http://validator.w3.org/todo.html>)
and I don't quite know why. Do any of you (Liam, Nick? Anyone?) have any
ideas? What does Page Valet and the WDG Validator (and A Real Validator for
that matter) do with that doc?
Received on Saturday, 21 April 2001 10:44:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:56 GMT