- From: Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:37:34 +0200
- To: "Terje Bless" <link@pobox.com>, "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Hello, > Looking closer to home, XHTML 1.0 only mentioned the issue in Appendix C: > > # C.1 Processing Instructions > # > # Be aware that processing instructions are rendered on some user agents. > # However, also note that when the XML declaration is not included in a > # document, the document can only use the default character encodings > # UTF-8 or UTF-16. > > XHTML 1.1 doesn't mention it, and neither does XHTML M12N or XHTML Basic. My two cents about that: First cent: XHTML 1.0 Appendix C.1 confuses all XML/HTML beginners because the XML declaration is mentioned in that paragraph about processing instructions as if it were a processing instruction, but the XML declaration is not a processing instruction, it is explicitely excluded from processing instructions by the XML specification (first and second edition). Second cent: The fact that XHTML 1.1, XHTML Basic 1.0 and XHTML Modularization Recommendations do not mention the encoding problem of course doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I really believe it should be mentioned more indepth in the W3C recommendations about HTML. The XML people are aware of that problem, but the HTML users aren't. Usually I use ASCII characters (true ASCII, means 7 Bit, 0-127) only because then it is legal to omit the XML declaration because ASCII is forwards-compatible to UTF-8 encoding of the Unicode charset. Every ASCII-document automatically is an UTF-8 document. Yes, I do use characters beyond 127, I even use characters beyond 255, but I use Entities for including them in my documents. Perhaps this behaviour should be recommended by the W3C since it avoids many problems and maintains compatibility between XHTML and old browsers. Just my two cents... Greetings Christian
Received on Friday, 31 August 2001 17:43:38 UTC