- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 18:52:24 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13771 --- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-08-13 18:52:23 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I think this is actually a feature of those browsers. Could be interesting to know why you think so given what you state in the following sentences. > Having less encodings is a benefit. Indeed. But that sounds like an argument in favour of emitting fatal error - as required by XML 1.0 - whenever the browser stumbles upon an encoding label for an encoding that it does not support. > Not having to support US-ASCII on its own but always treating it as > Windows-1252 is how the specifications should turn out to be in the end. That *could* be be interpreted as an argument for not supporting whether US-ASCII or WINDOWS-1252 in XML parsers. But if you seriously thinks that US-ASCII should become a legal alias for WINDOWS-1252 in XML then I guess relevant bugs filed against XML 1.0 and - I suppose - the IANA registry, will soon be filed - unless it has happened already? -- 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 Saturday, 13 August 2011 18:52:28 UTC