W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-125

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 11:38:33 -0500
Message-ID: <4CE01089.8080407@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 11/14/2010 11:20 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>> That being said: even if we do that it would be good to reduce
>> *unnecessary* deviations. For instance, it's totally not clear why
>> "foocharset" is parsed as "charset", while "charsetfoo" is not
>> (<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9628#c3>).
> It seems like that is a separate concern from the two issues
> currently under discussion. That being said, I believe older
> (pre-HTML5 parser) browsers generally work that way. When detecting
> the encoding, once they see "<meta", pre-HTML5 browsers just scan
> forward to find "charset=" before hitting ">". That's somewhat
> oversimplified, but a decent first-order approzimation. From that
> model, you can see why foocharset would be detected and charsetfoo
> would not. This same looseness is what makes HTML5's simplified
> charset syntax (<meta charset=utf8>) work in current browsers.
> If any case, if we want to take up this detail further, it should be
> via a separate bug/issue.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is but 9628, which previously had been marked 
with TrackerRequest.


> Regards, Maciej

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 14 November 2010 16:39:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:27 UTC