- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:19:20 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12950 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i | |ua.no --- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-06-15 00:19:20 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) Regarding "not trivial": * The bug asks *authoring tools* to add the BOM. It should be trivial for editor that are able to support UTF-8 to also add support for the BOM. (And if they don't support BOM yet, they should ASAP). Regarding "Allowing BOMs is fine": * If it is fine - a.k.a. "good", then we should encourage its use. (It *is* good, because it is the simplest way to avoid having to label the encoding via META element or HTTP charset parameter. Another reason why it is good is that not serving the file with the right encoding will trigger quirks-mode, which makes it a "soft-draconinan" error.) Regarding: "but requiring them isn't [fine]": * It seems to me that you give a reason (namely: author's will) why the BOM ought to be a SHOULD rather than a MUST. (And you could be right that it should be a SHOULD rather than a MUST. Because, after all, HTML5 allows the encoding to be specced via the HTTP charset parameter as well as the META element.) -- 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 Wednesday, 15 June 2011 00:19:22 UTC