W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-cvs@w3.org > September 2005

[Bug 1833] Wrong ISO-8859-1 enconding behaviour on "Direct input"

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:01:39 +0000
To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1EIMxX-0007y1-9C@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Additional Comments From ot@w3.org  2005-09-22 09:01 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> So, basically, what you are saying is that because the form on the validator's
> site is utf-8, then it should NOT be possibly to have your input validated in
> another encoding? Again, I would like to point out that to the user, there
> should be no difference between the three different validation methods.

Please read comment #1 and comment #6 carefully, 
and try the development instance of the validator at 

Let me try to explain once more:
When validating by uri or file upload you are transfering a file 
(i.e a sequence of bytes) for which it is necessary to know the 
encoding. This is done either with the HTTP headers that the 
server sends, or by trying to parse the document and find the 
<meta> information for charset.

When validating by direct input you are not transfering a file, 
you are transfering a series of characters that have been 
entered into a form field of a page in utf-8. It does NOT mean 
that the original content has to be utf-8, it means that your 
browser, automatically, will paste the content as utf-8 characters. 

Even if the original content was, say, iso-latin-1, the final string 
of characters sent to the validator will be utf-8, automatically, 
thanks to the browser. So the validator, which usually (when 
validating by URI) tries to find out what the encoding of the 
document is and transcodes it internally into utf-8 must NOT, 
in this case, believe what the <meta> says. Eventually, what 
you do not seem to understand is that there MUST be a difference 
in logic for the validator so that there is no difference, in the end, 
for the user. Which is our goal as it is your. 

I understand and sympathise with your concern, but the bug has 
been fixed in our development code, as you can see by testing 
the instance I have mentioned above (and below). So, regardless 
of whether my explanations are clear enough or not, regardless 
of whether you agree with or understand the logic, there is really 
no reason to keep arguing about it...


Thank you.
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2005 09:01:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:02:15 UTC