- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 11:38:33 -0500
- 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. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9628 > Regards, Maciej - Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 14 November 2010 16:39:45 UTC