- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:57:12 +0900
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
At 03:53 01/07/25 +0200, Terje Bless wrote: >On 25.07.01 at 03:05, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > >For what or whom? HTML 4 explicitly says user agents must not assume a > >default value for the charset parameter, as says RFC 3023 for > >application/xml (and application/xhtml+xml refers to that), so this is > >rather intentionally, isn't it? Sure, dump applications that don't know > >nothing about HTML may assume some default encoding (but as for > >application/xml they SHOULD NOT) but we don't have to deal with that. > >The issue is that the transport protocol sez that an absense of an explicit >charset parameter on the Content-Type means "ISO-8859-1"; HTML or XML rules >don't apply here. When it comes time to parse the markup, you already have >a charset; the XML/HTML rules do not govern HTTP. Sorry, but the HTML 4 spec explicitly says that the HTTP default doesn't work. >Now application/xml and application/xhtml+xml may well change this, but for >text/html we're still stuck with it. > >That's the theory... > > >In practice you have to decide between "Assume ISO-8859-1 as that's what >/people/ tend to assume" or "Assume nothing as people will get it wrong >some part of the time". Well, in your part, that's what /people/ tend to assume, but in this part of the world, assumptions are quite different. >In any case, we'll fix this in our pages when an oportunity presents >itself. No reason to set a bad example. :-) Great! Regards, Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 08:11:01 UTC