W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2003

Re: XHTML vs. <meta>-only encoding declarations

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:29:15 +0200
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <r02000000-1026-8FF615D8AE6611D794590030657B83E8@[]>

Hash: SHA1

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>* Terje Bless wrote:
>>>The MarkUp Validator gives no errors / warnings / whatever, it just
>>>tells the document is valid. The CSS Validator will treat the document
>>>as UTF-8 encoded XML document and throw an error for the bad UTF-8
>>>sequence. At least one of the validators should be changed to get
>>>consistent results. Which and how?
>>Given the Content-Type of text/html, I would say the CSS Validator is
>>in error here and should be amended to either pay attention to the
>><meta> value or use the HTTP defaulting rules (depending on what your
>>position on the HTTP vs. HTML vs. MIME defaulting rules is).
>>Granted XML rules suggest UTF-8 or -16 for this case, but as it's
>>served as text/html -- e.g. Appendix C rules -- these do not, IMO,
>But the MarkUp Validator honors the XML declaration in such documents...

So it does, but I'm inclined to consider this a bug where text/html documents
are concerned. And note that it only considers an explicitly given encoding
from the XML Declaration and does not apply XML defaulting rules here.

- -- 
We've gotten to a point where a human-readable,  human-editable text format
for structured data has become a complex nightmare where someone can safely
say "As many threads on xml-dev have shown, text-based processing of XML is
hazardous at best" and be perfectly valid in saying it.     -- Tom Bradford

Version: PGP SDK 3.0.2

Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 17:29:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:37 UTC