Re: Character set validation

From: Kathleen Anderson (kathleen@spiderwebwoman.com)
Date: Mon, Mar 05 2001

  • Next message: Karl Dubost: "Re: Article on Testing Web Apps"

    Message-ID: <005301c0a57a$1ac6c040$3a083ccc@kathleen>
    From: "Kathleen Anderson" <kathleen@spiderwebwoman.com>
    To: "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>
    Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
    Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:41:37 -0500
    Subject: Re: Character set validation
    
    Nick:
    I was about to post the URL, but I ran the page through the validator one
    more time and the problem appears to have been fixed. Now the only errors I
    get are in the HTML.
    Thanks for responding,
    
    ~ Kathleen Anderson
    Spider Web Woman Designs
    http://www.spiderwebwoman.com
    email: kathleen@spiderwebwoman.com
    
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>
    To: "Kathleen Anderson" <kathleen@spiderwebwoman.com>
    Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
    Sent: March 04, 2001 6:55 PM
    Subject: Re: Character set validation
    
    
    >
    > OK, this charset problem has been reported by enough people to convince
    > me there's a bug, and that it's probably not the same as the one I mention
    > below.  So I'm going to repost my reply to Kathleen from ciwah.
    >
    > ======
    > > Hi:
    > > I was directed to this group by http://validator.w3.org/feedback.html
    > >
    > > Does anyone know why this charset:
    > >
    > > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
    > > charset=windows-1252">
    >
    > You also posted to the validator mailing list, which is probably the best
    > place for this (I didn't respond there for reasons that should become
    > apparent in a moment).
    >
    > Now there are two parts to this:
    >   (1) The construct you are using is fundamentally nonsense.
    >   (2) Nevertheless, it is perfectly valid, and what you describe appears
    >       to be a validator bug.
    > I'd like to add a third a third part: I recollect fixing a bug in my
    > own validator (Page Valet) that was triggered by a windows-1252 charset.
    > Unfortunately I can't recollect enough about this to relate it to
    > your report, which I'd like to do before replying to the list.
    >
    > Going back to the main points:
    > (1) The construct <meta ...> is part of HTML.  Content-Type is an
    > HTTP header.  If content-type is not text/html, then the document
    > cannot be treated as HTML, and <meta ...> has no HTML meaning.
    > If content-type is text/html, then it has already been declared by
    > the server, and for a browser or other agent to use the <meta ...>
    > in place of the HTTP header would be illegal.
    > (2) In view of (1), the validator is wrong to take any notice at all
    > of your charset declared in <meta ...>.  The fact that this is causing
    > it to fall over is secondary.  All the validator should do here is
    > check your syntax, which happens to be correct.
    >
    > Of course, without a URL, I cannot confirm anything, so this
    > analysis is purely speculative.
    > ====
    >
    >
    > --
    > Nick Kew
    >
    > Is your site a lawsuit waiting to happen?
    > See <URL:http://valet.webthing.com/intranet/> before it's too late.
    >
    >
    >