- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:44:34 -0800
- To: Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote: > ... What I wrote perhaps suffers from me not actually believing Tab's > argument that new stylesheets can just use UTF-8 and not bother with > @charset. Assuming for this discussion that the "can just use UTF-8" > part is not a problem, leaving out the @charset only works if every > referring document also uses UTF-8, or if the server is configured to > send Content-Type directives with an encoding annotation. It has been > my experience that neither of these can actually be relied on in > practice (you would not *believe* how many web developers have told me > that HTTP headers are completely out of their control!) So what I > actually think is that encoding should always be annotated in-band, even > if it is "the" encoding. Every HTML document should include a <meta charset=utf-8> in its head. It's as much a part of a valid document as the doctype, frankly - lacking it effectively puts you in "quirky encoding" mode. As long as that happens, there's no reason to declare in-band charsets on any resource. They'll either default to utf-8 or pull the encoding from the HTML page. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 24 January 2014 16:45:30 UTC