- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 11:42:55 +0900
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>, Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
At 11:36 01/07/26 +0200, Terje Bless wrote: >On 26.07.01 at 09:08, Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com> wrote: > > >Surely that at least is clear: [HTTP] takes precedence over [META]? > >Nope. HTTP 1.1 doesn't mention META, and HTML just sez it's supposed to be >read by _servers_ to initialize the HTTP header... :-( Sorry, this is wrong. Please everybody read http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/charset.html#h-5.2 ! > >>Or what this means for the case when the charset in the HTTP header is > >>there by inference (as a default, not explicitly)... > > > >But *ML rules don't apply to HTTP, so whence the conclusion that > >*anything* is implicit (as opposed to absent) in the headers? > >The lack of a "charset" parameter on the HTTP 1.1 "Content-Type" header >field means that you should assume it is there with a value of "ISO-889-1" >according to the HTTP 1.1 RFC. HTML doesn't specify a default (it actually >discourages it). But if HTTP overrides META, and the HTTP charset is only >there by default, does HTTP's default still override an explicitly inserted >META? By widespread current practice, as well as by the HTML 4 Rec, NO. >That is, if the META sez EUC-JP and HTTP implicitly defines ISO-8859-1 (by >being absent), does that really mean that we should use ISO-8859-1 (which >the user obviously does _not_ want) over EUC-JP (which s/he _does_ want)? Yes. The validator currently goes for EUC-JP, and that's the right thing. > >>or "I'm sorry, but I was unable to determine the Character Encoding based > >>on available information. Please make your Character Encoding explicit in > >>the HTTP headers". > > > >Except if HTTP happens to be FTP or file upload, and there is no header... > >Or a fragment pasted into the form (not finished yet)... Or... > >It must be dealt with, but these are sufficiantly fringe cases that we can >add exceptions for those. I think... :-) Yes, these must be treated differently. I think the right thing to do, for both fragment and file upload, is: - Take the explicit selection in the popup menu as if it were the transport information (e.g. HTTP). - For the rest, do as currently. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 27 July 2001 22:57:04 UTC