- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:14:49 -0400
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On May 7, 2007, at 14:21 , Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > Only for XML-based documents. For classic HTML, there is > controversy (conflict of specifications). The HTML 4.01 > specification says that no default shall be assumed (which is a > somewhat odd position, but not very odd if you think about it). Right, and in such a case the validator will properly complain about the absence of character encoding declaration, but try anyway with a fallback (utf-8), which is infinitely more useful for the user than a fatal error. > I think that for nominally SGML-based validation, a warning should > be issued if the encoding not specified either in HTTP headers or > in a meta tag ... which has been the case for years. > and validation should be carried out assuming the windows-1252 > encoding, since this covers the most common cases. I'm curious, why windows-1252? How would this platform-dependent charset be more appropriate as a fallback than the universal unicode? thanks -- olivier
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 19:14:59 UTC