- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:04:26 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 18:23 +0200 UTC, on 2007-08-21, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > 2007-08-21 17:09:58 +0200 Sander Tekelenburg: [...] > Currently the extension method doesn't work out of the box. But it should >be relatively easy for browsers to start reading charset suffixes. FWIW, iCab already does. (And the file name's charset info overrides the document's meta http-equiv's charset value.) [...] > this just a help. If the charset is specified inside the file but not in >the filename, then the browsers will use that charset instead - as they >allready do. I'm less sure now that I understand what exactly you propose. Do I understand correctly that you mean that the charset info in the file name overrides both @charset and the HTTP Content-Type charset value? I'll grant you that, despite my aversion of file name extensions[*], it might indeed be an option in the sense of providing a new mechanism. But Ian's 5th point, raised in <http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.64.0708202003070.8981@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>, remains, doesn't it? [*] File name extensions are even less rich than MIME types. Is file.mov an audio/mp3, or video/mpeg, or audio.ogg? -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 20:08:22 UTC