- From: Claudio Pellegrino <cloaked01@claudio-pellegrino.de>
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:20:33 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
Hello, David! >> Hmm yes, this seems redundant in a way. >> However, I am strongly convinced that the reason to introduce the >> HTML attribute was to give authors a "syntactically cleaner" way to >> specify their character encoding. >> > > I would say there were a couple of reasons: > > 1) documents may be served by protocols, e.g. direct file access, > which > do not carry character set metadata. > > 2) most people learn HTML on servers where the ability to configure > the > server is blocked for commercial, or, maybe, security reasons. […] > Sorry – my comment was indeed a bit ambiguous. Allow me to clarify. James was wondering why (in HTML) there is a separate "charset" attribute: > [script type="text/foo" charset="UTF-8" src="ext.js"][/script] while according to his interpretation, RFC 2046 (hence, also HTML 4.01) seems to literally *demand* instead: > [script type="text/foo; charset=UTF-8" src="ext.js"][/script] Responding to that, I was trying to say: I am convinced both are semantically equivalent, and it seems to me that the HTML working group introduced the former variant just as a "cleaner" way of expressing the latter. Of course, you are right with what you wrote about protocol header attributes. Sorry again. Regards, Claudio Pellegrino
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 10:20:43 UTC