- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:10:09 -0400
- To: XHTML-L@egroups.com, "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@w3.org>, <www-validator@w3.org>, <XHTML-L@egroups.com>
At 10:43 PM 10/4/00 +0200, Bertilo Wennergren wrote: >What about XHTML (and other XML document types)? According to XML rules >such a doc, without an explicit encoding declaration, should be taken >as UTF-8 or UTF-16 (automatically detected). Do we have a clash between >two different rule sets here? Does it matter if XHTML is served as "text/xml" >or "text/html"? Would the rules for encodings, http versus in-doc declarations, >be different? If the http charset parameter says one thing, and the in-doc >declaration says another thing, which one should take precedence? According >to the XHTML spec encoding info in an XML declaration takes precedence over >meta-element charset info, but does it win over true http charset info as >well? > >The current practice is to let meta charset info win over true http >charset info, which might be in violation of the rules. This is confusing >already. Bringing in XML declarations (and the default encoding when there >is no XML declaration, or when there is no encoding attribute in the >XML declaration) makes this even more confusing. > >I've been wondering about this for a long time. I'd like to find clear >rules based on understandable logic, but I haven't found that yet. >Any hope? For a foundation, you might take a look at: http://www.imc.org/draft-murata-xml However, I think the HTML WG is going to have to address these with a MIME content type registration. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 17:07:01 UTC