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

Re: default charset broken

From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:28:17 +0200
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1r3cillrv2.fsf@vingodur.ifi.uio.no>

[Terje Bless]:
>   Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>   > so therefore this reasoning doesn't apply.  you can't ignore a
>   > requirement out of hand.
>   You're splitting hairs. It's clear what the authors of the HTML 4
>   Recommendation intended and what that paragraph is intended to
>   mean.

yes.  my argument is that the recommendation is invalid, since they
commit a layering violation, and contradict an RFC which was standard
track at the time of publication.

>   > I'll reiterate: when it comes to specifying how HTTP works, the
>   > HTTP RFC trumps the HTML spec.
>   Says who? Even within the IETF you'd have trouble making that stick.

do you really think so?  I find that very hard to believe, especially
since HTML 4 isn't even an IETF standard.

>   You could argue that the passage be dropped from the HTML Rec --
>   in errata or during specification -- on the grounds that the HTML
>   WG has no business overriding the HTTP WG (I have several recent
>   examples of that from USEFOR vs. MESSFOR); but once it's published
>   (as a Rec or an RFC) the requirement stands until and unless it is
>   revoked by errata or update.

you agreed there is a contradiction between the two documents, and so
one of the two must yield.  I think it is obvious that the established
standard must have precedence.

Kjetil T.
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2003 13:28:21 UTC

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