- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:14:38 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15359 --- Comment #26 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- (In reply to comment #24) > The move from Trident was probably more to comply with the specification > than to not break legacy content. The latest CSS drafts have been updated to > take the Encoding Standard into account. Dunno about XML, but it should > follow suit. It is worth noting that XML 1.0 does not have any normative rules about what to do in case of conflict btween HTTP and BOM (and also not in case of conflict between HTTP and XML encoding declaration). It only has section F.2, which is non-normative (as it is part of non-normative section F). And thus XML parsers are not required to follow what it says: [1] ]] F.2 Priorities in the Presence of External Encoding Information The second possible case occurs when the XML entity is accompanied by encoding information, as in some file systems and some network protocols. When multiple sources of information are available, their relative priority and the preferred method of handling conflict should be specified as part of the higher-level protocol used to deliver XML. In particular, please refer to [IETF RFC 3023] or its successor, which defines the text/xml and application/xml MIME types and provides some useful guidance. [[ Thus XML, currently, (non-normatively) leaves the question of priority over to HTTP ... [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#sec-guessing-with-ext-info -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 01:18:15 UTC