- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:02:03 +0200
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 2010-08-02 03:16, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Kornel Lesiński, Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:54:37 +0100: >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:55:28 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>> We have several reason to introduce it. But I agree that there are also >>> reasons to no introduce it. >> >> I'm not aware of reasons other than ability to declare legacy >> encodings in XML. What are the other reasons for it? > > Use case: To open non-UTF-8/non-UTF-16 encoded documents from the disc. > (See your own comment above.= Opening such documents as XHTML > documents, become impractical without an encoding declaration that > XHTML tools/consumers understand. That use case is just a subset of what Kornel just said. You entire argument seems to be premised on the assumption that the ability to declare legacy encodings within the document is a desirable feature for polyglot documents. But it's not. Making additional special allowances for legacy encodings is not a worthwhile exercise. Authors can and should just use UTF-8 if they want to claim to be writing a polyglot document and have an internal declaration. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 2 August 2010 09:02:38 UTC