- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:58:44 +0200
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Cc: "WWW Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 21, 2004, at 00:26, Bert Bos wrote: > 4) If all else fails, assume UTF-8. Why not windows-1252 (with the few undefined bytes mapped to *something* so that all byte streams can be converted some "characters")? From a pragmatic point of view it would make sense to acknowledge that people how aren't clued about character encodings are more likely to serve style sheets that work if treated as windows-1252 than to serve UTF-8. Also, for HTML browsers tend to default to windows-1252 regardless of the specs. This approach would allow non-ASCII comments to be safely ignored--and usually the non-ASCII characters in style sheets occur in comments, because generated content isn't used much and few people are adventurous enough to use non-ASCII for identifiers. Anyway, it's just plain stupid to use non-ASCII outside comments in a style sheet that doesn't have a character encoding label and doesn't have a BOM, so in the relatively rare cases where this heuristic fails, the author would have only him/herself to blame. Using this heuristic also in case 3 instead of looking at the linking document would improve the cacheability of parsed style sheets with negligible actual breakage. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 08:59:51 UTC