Andreas Prilop wrote: > There is *no* disastrous side effect with the validator. > The validator reports "non SGML character number ..." > and this is a fine and useful error report. It's not when the page in question clearly says that it's windows-1252, overruled by a stupid Web server claiming that it is Latin-1, resulting in said error report with say Nikita. It's a disaster that HTML 5 is forced to replace Latin-1 by windows-1252, because nobody uses Latin-1 outside of your test page. It's an unmitigated disaster if 2616bis sticks to "default Latin-1" with a barrage of SHOULD and MAY roughly stating that "explicit Latin-1 means dunno, and no charset implcitly means Latin-1". Apart from RFC 1123 5.3.6(a) destroying the concept of responsibility built into RFC 821 that "HTTP default" is the most egregious disaster in standards I ever heard of. The usual I18N suspects fixed it one year too late, now we have to live it for four more *decades* (in 2048 or later the whole world uses UTF-8 per decree in RFC 2277). FrankReceived on Friday, 25 April 2008 19:32:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:59:07 UTC