- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:32:47 -0400
- To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Hi Frank, On Mar 11, 2008, at 05:41 , Frank Ellermann wrote: >> http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/03/html-charset.html > > Nice, comment sent. I'm always interested when folks claim > to know the "rough consensus". To be entirely fair, I don't claim that. I wrote "rough consensus" because "the consensus as it seems to have happened, based on the stories I have heard and the eventual result" would be too long :) >> AFAIK the w3c markup validator is not following the >> recommendation of trying a iso-8859-1 fallback (as is the >> rule, kinda, for text/*) because... it's just a bad one. > > Indeed, go and tell the 2616bis folks. At the moment the > state is apparently "if there's no consensus to fix it, we > keep it as is" <sigh /> Do you have a pointer to discussions on the http-wg list? I would agree that the current recommendation of the HTTP spec is broken, and I suspect everyone agrees with that. I also suspect that finding a solution that works while following certain constraints (backward compatibility?) must be a nasty headache. > correct me if I have it wrong, I think the validator never > really looks at the <?xml encoding="..." to figure out what > the encoding is, it only verifies that this matches what it > has "divined" elsewhere, e.g., based on lying HTTP servers. I think the validator does look at the xml declaration as a source. See e.g the following test case: http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/dev/tests/charset-xmldecl.xhtml -- olivier
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 14:33:00 UTC