- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 05:00:12 +0200
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
* Terje Bless wrote: >Right, and this is why I consider it a bug. IMO when served as text/html we >should not pay attention to the XML Declaration; except in the case where it >is the only source of encoding information (in which case it is a usefull >heuristic but should generate a warning). Or maybe an error if the document contains octet sequences that aren't valid UTF-8 sequences... >>XHTML user agents must ignore the meta element and HTML user agents >>must ignore the XML declaration, > >Hmmm. I can't recall these two requirements from anywhere. Care to cite me a >reference for them? XHTML refers to XML 1.0 for encoding detection which clearly states that the XML processor must assume UTF-8/16 in absence of an XML declaration; XHTML user agents must thus behave as if they ignore the meta element. HTML user agents are strictly speaking allowed to use the "processing instruction that looks similar to an XML declaration" to determine the encoding, but not with the same semantics, i.e., the meta element and encoding information specified by the referring resource (charset attribute on <a> for example) take precedence; that's rather close to ignoring it. >>.... Maybe I should bring this issue up to the HTML WG? > >I'm not sure what good it would do. I suppose they either know or can agree on how conforming user agents must or should behave and whether the document is to be considered well-formed/valid/conforming/strictly-conforming/whatever... >OTOH, if we can get unambiguous specs on this it would make my life soooo much >easier, and would let us tell a much more compelling story to web developers. We'll see...
Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 23:00:36 UTC