- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:07:03 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10890 --- Comment #2 from I18n Core WG <public-i18n-core@w3.org> 2010-10-01 10:07:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > When the file is not actually encoded in UTF-16, <meta charset="utf-16"> means > the same as <meta charset="utf-8"> and is a clear authoring error. It would be > completely illogical not to flag it as an error. That Web compat requires this > UA behavior is evidence of authors getting things wrong when they try to use > <meta charset="utf-16">. I am not proposing any change to the spec where the file is not actually encoded in UTF-16. I was careful to say 'in UTF-16 encoded documents'. > When the file is actually encoded in UTF-16, <meta charset="utf-16"> has no > effect. Exactly. So it's not an issue for character detection. However, my point is that there are usability issues. (a) Without a meta element you can't tell the encoding by visual inspection. (b) People will continue to use these meta elements for UTF-16. If there is no harm in it, why force them to change their code? (c) Because the UTF-16 rules for meta are different from other encodings, the author has to always remember to handle UTF-16 in a special way. Why force validators to always check and educational materials to always explain a special exception for meta elements in UTF-16 encoded documents when a <meta charset=utf-16> in such a document does no harm? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 10:07:05 UTC