- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:31:16 +0100
- To: www-validator@w3.org
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Whether iso-8859-3 is really _needed_ is debatable.
The validator validates, it can't debate.
> It might be better not to support it, thereby
> encourageing authors to move to other encodings.
But that has nothing to do with validation. It's not
evangelize.w3.org, for that it has the tip of the day.
Authors could have compelling reasons why they pick
"obscure" charsets, it's not the job of the validator
to "punish" them for whatever those reasons are.
The online validator could display a corresponding tip
"why iso-8859-15 is really worse than windows-1252",
but simply not supporting 'latin-0' would be wrong.
I've no clue what the iso-8859-3 situation is, maybe
it's different from iso-8859-15.
Bye, Frank
Received on Friday, 10 February 2006 23:34:12 UTC