- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:43:30 +0000
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, WWW International <www-international@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > Ok. The current spec text is: > >> If the return value was utf-16 or utf-16be, use utf-8 as the fallback >> encoding; if it was anything else except failure, use the return >> value as the fallback encoding. This text seems fine, modulo that utf-16 should be utf-16le and you then want to reorder them to sort them. >> Note: With an ASCII-incompatible encoding, the ASCII @charset byte >> sequence itself would decode as garbage. This mimics HTML <meta> >> behavior. This new note seems fine. I would clarify ASCII-incompatible as meaning utf-16be or utf-16le within the note as the term ASCII-incompatible is not a normative thing and keep the original normative text plus the clarification I mentioned above. > By the way, do we want to use the environment (a.k.a. referring document’s) > encoding if it’s ASCII-incompatible? I checked this with Henri a month ago or so. We do. There's no risk in it being "ASCII-incompatible". -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 11:43:58 UTC