- From: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 10:38:59 -0400
- To: MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, ietf-types@iana.org, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, public-qt-comments@w3.org
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 10:18:18AM +0900, MURATA Makoto wrote: > > > (1) to remove the optional encoding parameter, as you suggested > > I think that this is a wrong decision. Please reintroduce the charset > parameter. If present, it overrides the encoding declaration or BOM. If > it is absent, the encoding declaration or BOM is used. Please note that this is for application/xquery -- a non-XML format. For application/xqueryx+xml I'll send separate mail. One reason for dropping the encoding parameter (after discussions with Mark Baker and others) is that in practice it's unlikely to be used... e.g. from a Web browser passing off to a local query processor or from a saved file). Since the format is "application", proxies cannot transcode the file, so the encoding declaration in the file is authoritative. Interchange of a database query language over the Web in its own Internet Type is likely for machine execution or to interchange files, not for reading by humans, as then text/plain might be more appropriate... but this is conjecture on my part right now. Do you have an environment in which the encoding parameter is useful or important? We don't have a significant use case for it, and our understanding was that the W3C TAG had considered the encoding parameter to be a bad idea too. Thanks! Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2005 14:42:51 UTC