- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 15:34:42 -0700
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: "M.T. Carrasco Benitez" <mtcarrascob@yahoo.com>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>, Erik van der Poel <erikv@google.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Harley Rosnow <Harley.Rosnow@microsoft.com>
On May 31, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> I believe the stance of most of the participants in the
> HTML working group is that no "version indicator" for
> HTML5 is necessary, and there is no specific
> "HTML5 doctype", against which newer, or stricter,
> behavior can be keyed.
>
> If charset defaulting is a reason for having a specific
> HTML5 version indicator, in order to trigger a stricter
> interpretation, say, of the default charset, that would
> be interesting.
I think it would be pretty poor if some indicator of the document
version (e.g. the doctype or as suggested by someone else a version
parameter in the Content-Type header) changed the default charset.
There are two reasons I say this:
1) It goes against our desire to allow for gradual adoption. If
changing your doctype declaration could have the side effect of
changing your charset from Windows-1252 ("Windows Latin-1") to UTF-8,
that would be a serious risk of breaking upgraded documents.
2) Doctype and Content-type parameter are both opt-in mechanisms. But
there's already explicit ways to opt in to UTF-8: the charset
parameter on Content-type, or a <meta> tag in the document. Explicit
opt-in seems better to me than implicit, since it's more likely the
author will be making a change intentionally.
It would be convenient if UTF-8 could be the default character set,
but we can't safely apply that to legacy content, so we can't do it.
Having it be the default under an opt-in doesn't really make it the
default, it just adds a way to ask for UTF-8, though a subtle and
implicit one. And the benefit does not seem great enough to add an
additional implicit opt-in. WinLatin1 is not a broken encoding, and
opting in to UTF-8 is already quite simple.
Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 31 May 2009 22:36:26 UTC