- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:12:21 +1100
Henri Sivonen wrote: > If a meta element whose http-equiv attribute has the value > "Content-Type" (compare case-insensitively) and whose content attribute > has a value that begins with "text/html; charset=", the string in the > content attribute following the start "text/html; charset=" is taken, > white space removed from the sides and considered the tentative encoding > name. This will need to handle common mistakes such as the following: <meta ... content="application/xhtml+xml;charset=X"> <meta ... content="foo/bar;charset=X"> <meta ... content="foo/bar;charset='X'"> <meta ... content="charset=X"> <meta ... charset="X"> I'm not sure which browsers support each one, they'll all need to be tested. > Authors are adviced not to use the UTF-32 encoding or legacy encodings. > (Note: I think UTF-32 on the Web is harmful and utterly pointless, I agree about it being pointless, but why is it considered harmful? > I'd like to have some text in the spec that justifies whining > about legacy encodings. What are your reasons for whining about legacy encodings and what would you like the spec to say? > Also, the spec should probably give guidance on what encodings need to > be supported. That set should include at least UTF-8, US-ASCII, > ISO-8859-1 and Windows-1252. And probably UTF-16 as well. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 06:12:21 UTC