- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:13:31 +0100
- To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:58:07 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Other than XML, is there a precedent for using "encoding"? Most places >> use "charset" I think (HTTP, CSS, HTML). > > DOM Level 3 Core uses xmlEncoding and inputEncoding, XSLT uses output- > encoding, .NET uses System.Text.Encoding.*, Google search uses "ie" and > "oe" parameters indicating "encoding", ... It seems unlikely you could > make a sensible argument about usage (outside the context of HTTP > headers, which includes "HTML") to choose one over the other here. Well, CSS has @charset, and HTML has a charset attribute. And xmlEncoding and inputEncoding are on their way out. I think it would make more sense to keep using charset as a keyword. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 4 February 2012 07:14:05 UTC