- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:49:32 +0200
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp, dan@dankohn.com, www-tag@w3.org
* Chris Lilley wrote: >My preference would be to not have a redundant charset parameter, since >that would remove the ambiguity. However, I realize that people are >uncomfortable with that and thus propose this solution. It seems to me that the only difference between requiring applications to ignore the charset parameter (regardless of whether it is allowed or not) and your proposal is that with your proposal applications would be required to report conflicts in some yet unknown way. I am not sure why anyone would be more comfortable with your proposal as I do not think that they are uncomfortable with that due to lack of error reporting. >Consistent means that the encoding determined by >F Autodetection of Character Encodings (Non-Normative) >http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-guessing > >is either the same as the value of the charset pArameter, or the charset >parameter is not provided. That's still not clear to me; are e.g. "l1" and "iso-8859-1" "the same"?
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2004 17:50:22 UTC