- From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:26:30 +0100
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Atom Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>
Jamie Lokier wrote: > I don't have a position either way. I suggest that if RFC 3023 should > be obsoleted, it is should be only if there's an abundance of clients > which look at the <?xml...?> declaration given "text/xml" -- in > effect, giving up a requirement of RFC 3032, in the same way that HTML > 4.01 says to give up a requirement from RFC 2616. > > I don't know if there is an abundance of such clients. Btw, if I were writing a new client, prior to this thread I would have made it interpret "text/xml" as meaning to look in the XML declaration for the charset. Not out of maliciousness, but ignorance: it had simply never occurred to me that "text/xml" meant the same as "text/xml; charset=us-ascii". I've read the XML 1.0 documentation quite closely, and I still managed to skip over that bit. I.e. I didn't read RFC 2376 properly which it references, because it didn't occur to me it was important in this regard. It's also a bit counterintuitive that an XML file which specifies a charset in its XML declaration would have one meaning when received as "text/xml", and another when saved as file.xml and then read again. Even on a filesystem which saves the content-type as a special attribute, that's the case, as XML 1.0 says: In the interests of interoperability, however, the following rule is recommended. If an XML entity is in a file, the Byte-Order Mark and encoding declaration are used (if present) to determine the character encoding. -- Jamie
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 13:26:35 UTC