Re: charset parameter

At 00:05 01/07/27 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>* Terje Bless wrote:
> >The HTML Recommendation has no authority to dictate syntax or semantics for
> >an arbitrary transport protocol.
>Well, it doesn't. It defines behaivour for applications that retrieve
>specific content over a specific transport protocol.
> >I'm guessing that the _intent_ was that something labelled "ISO-8859-1"
> >should be parsed accordingly, until a meta element with, say,
> >"windows-1250" was encountered, and then _restarted_ with the new encoding
> >in effect (implicit in this is that it should be compatible with the
> >transport encoding up to the meta element).
>No, the intent was, that _servers_ parse the HTML document and send the
>correct Content-Type: header, HTML 4 even says so.

Where? Is that a must? It was planned that way, but it turned out
that it was too complicated to do that on the server, and too
much performance hit.

> >This obviously does not consider HTTP defaulting behaviour, but even
> >[RFC 2854] still says that ISO-8859-1 is the default.
>It says what HTTP/1.1 says, it doesn't define any default value for the
>charset parameter but it does point at section 5.2 of HTML 4.

Yes. Section 5.2 of HTML 4 is closest to current practice, and
that's what the validator is following (or trying to follow).

>[1] I think the http-equiv attribute is the worst thing ever
>     incorporated into HTML. It hasn't been implemented, it beeing
>     abused, semantics aren't clearly defined, the definition is
>     ambigious, only a small number of people put syntactically valid
>     information in the content attribute for some HTTP headers, etc.pp.
>     I'll find some evil hellcat to put even more evil spells on the HTML
>     WG members if this attribute won't be kicked out of XHTML 2.0 (or
>     replaced by something with value) };-)

This is easy to guess. XHTML 2.0 will use the XML 'encoding' pseudo-attribute.

Regards,    Martin.

Received on Friday, 27 July 2001 22:55:51 UTC