[Bug 21818] XHTML5: Permit <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21818

--- Comment #6 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
(In reply to comment #5)

> So the proposal would be to replace that with:
> 
> """
> <p>
> The Encoding declaration state may be used in HTML documents and in XML
> documents. If the Encoding declaration state is used in an XML document, the
> name of the character encoding must be an ASCII case-insensitive match for
> the string "UTF-8" (and the document is therefore forced to use UTF-8 as its
> encoding).
> </p>
> <p class=note>
> The Encoding declaration state has no effect in XML documents, and is only
> allowed in order to facilitate migration to and from XHTML.
> </p>
> """
> 
> Is that correct? Would it address your concerns?

Absolutely! This seems perfect.

> Has anyone checked implementations on this? I don't mind making this change
> so long as browsers *really* ignore this instruction in XHTML. A test case
> would be most valuable.

XML 1.0 only operates the following ways of setting the encoding:

* fallback/default = UTF-8
* UTF-16 (and UTF-8) sniffing
* BOM
* <?xml version="*" encoding="*"?> (forbidden in polyglot)
* server sent HTTP Content-Type header

Thus, meta elements are not included in XML’s encoding calculation rules.
Neither is the XML MIME type supposed to be decided by looking into <meta>.

Now, with regard to testing, then I recommend to test with a XHTML file without
file extension, loaded via file:/// URL. For example a file called "test". (And
not "test.html" or "test.xhtml".) But note that not all browsers will accept to
open a file without file extension. (The file extension tells the mime type.)

First test you could do is to check this:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8"
/>

vs this

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />

RESULT: text/html, regardless (in Chrome and Firfefox. Safari refuses to open.)

And so on. Other tests are certainly possible, but I think the above proves the
point.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 27 May 2013 13:19:08 UTC