- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:42:06 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10890 --- Comment #3 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> 2010-10-04 11:42:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > 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. My point is that you actually can't inspect this visually. If you open a file in a text editor and you see <meta charset="utf-16"> how do you know whether: 1) The file had a UTF-16 BOM and was encoded in UTF-16 and the meta has no effect. OR 2) The file didn't have an UTF-16 BOM and was encoded in an ASCII-superset encoding and the meta would make a UA treat the file as being UTF-8-encoded. ? > (b) People will continue to use these meta elements for UTF-16. I think we should try to change things so that people will use UTF-8 and not continue to use UTF-16. > (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. This will not be a problem if authors always use UTF-8 and, as result, don't use UTF-16. -- 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 Monday, 4 October 2010 11:42:07 UTC