- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:56:29 +0200
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: www-international <www-international@w3.org>
* Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >Bjoern Hoehrmann, Tue, 07 Jun 2011 06:39:34 +0200: >> Higher-level information overrides lower-level information, explicit >> information overrides fallbacks, and user agents should do what their >> users want them to do. So, HTTP-level Content-Type overrides document- >> internal information, a BOM overrides user-chosen fallbacks, and user- >> chosen overrides trump anything else. > >You portray the BOM as "fallback". It actuallly is an encoding >signature. If you think I wrote something that is inconsistent with facts, then maybe you misread what I wrote? I did not, and did not mean to, por- tray a Unicode signature as a fallback in the sense I used the word. I meant fallback in the sense of a "If page lacks encoding declaration assume it's $encoding encoded" setting, as opposed to a "Whatever the page says it's encoded in, use $encoding to decode" setting. >"Looks like a BOM". Looks like or are exactly those bytes? Can you >describe a use case? When and how can an XML document/entity legally >start with the BOM if it is not meant to be interpreted as the BOM? Looks like as opposed to "defined as". Content-Type: application/xml-external-parsed-entity;charset=l1 0xFE 0xFF That's a properly formed external parsed entity containing LATIN SMALL LETTER THORN and LATIN SMALL LETTER Y WITH DIAERESIS. If you ignore the charset parameter, the bytes may look like a Unicode signature, but the bytes are not a Unicode signature because they are not defined as such. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 14:56:55 UTC