- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:07:00 +0200
- To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
- cc: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no> wrote: >|The HTTP protocol ([RFC2616], section 3.7.1) mentions ISO-8859-1 as a >|default character encoding when the "charset" parameter is absent from >|the "Content-Type" header field. In practice, this recommendation has >|proved useless > >it is not a RECOMMENDATION, it is a REQUIREMENT ("are defined to" -- no >leeway there). > >|because some servers don't allow a "charset" parameter to be sent, and >|others may not be configured to send the parameter. Therefore, user >|agents must not assume any default value for the "charset" parameter. > >so therefore this reasoning doesn't apply. you can't ignore a >requirement out of hand. You're splitting hairs. It's clear what the authors of the HTML 4 Recommendation intended and what that paragraph is intended to mean. Reinterpreting it to fit your conclusion doesn't alter that. >I'll reiterate: when it comes to specifying how HTTP works, the HTTP >RFC trumps the HTML spec. Says who? Even within the IETF you'd have trouble making that stick. You could argue that the passage be dropped from the HTML Rec -- in errata or during specification -- on the grounds that the HTML WG has no business overriding the HTTP WG (I have several recent examples of that from USEFOR vs. MESSFOR); but once it's published (as a Rec or an RFC) the requirement stands until and unless it is revoked by errata or update. - -- If you believe that will stop spammers, you're sadly misled. Rusty hooks, rectally administered fuel oil enemas, and the gutting of their machines, *that* stops spammers! -- Saundo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.0.2 iQA/AwUBPuINoqPyPrIkdfXsEQLc6QCgvjBy4YgMda3t+SeasWc6dVSGgAAAoIt2 TioDuLLl5yvuHvSL243UONra =zL4z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2003 12:07:04 UTC