- From: MURATA Makoto <mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:23:52 +0900 (JST)
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp, simonstl@simonstl.com
> RFC 3023 recommends supplying a charset header for > both application/xml and text/xml. I think the TAG and > W3C should take a slightly different stand. I'm fine > with text/xml, except for > > (a) I'd strengthen it to MUST, since the default (US-ASCII) > is almost certainly always wrong, and I like the idea. On the other hand, many people have ignored such recommendation. Even if we adopt this change, will the real world change? > (b) I'd give serious consideration to deprecating text/xml > and text/*+xml I agree. Having learned how MIME people feel about text/*, I have come to think that text/* is inappropriate for XML. On the other hand, I think many people will use text/something anyway, even if text/xml had not been registered from the beginning. > As regards application/xml, application/*+xml, I think 3023 > is probably wrong and we should take stand that the server > SHOULD NOT send a charset header because > > (a) there's no transcoding, so the in-band signaling > mechanisms of XML work just fine, and so > (b) the recipient will have a much higher chance in almost > every case than the server of getting the encoding > right. I think that this approach is ad-hoc, as I have discussed in [1]. Further discussion about this issue should probably be done in the I18N WG. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Feb/0000.html -- MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 03:29:27 UTC