W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Validator charset

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:32:47 -0400
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-Id: <BC9FA990-AC04-43E1-8343-C3C682555FFB@w3.org>
To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>

Hi Frank,

On Mar 11, 2008, at 05:41 , Frank Ellermann wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/03/html-charset.html
> Nice, comment sent.  I'm always interested when folks claim
> to know the "rough consensus".

To be entirely fair, I don't claim that. I wrote "rough consensus"  
because "the consensus as it seems to have happened, based on the  
stories I have heard and the eventual result" would be too long :)

>> AFAIK the w3c markup validator is not following the
>> recommendation of trying a iso-8859-1 fallback (as is the
>> rule, kinda, for text/*) because... it's just a bad one.
> Indeed, go and tell the 2616bis folks.  At the moment the
> state is apparently "if there's no consensus to fix it, we
> keep it as is" <sigh />

Do you have a pointer to discussions on the http-wg list?

I would agree that the current recommendation of the HTTP spec is  
broken, and I suspect everyone agrees with that. I also suspect that  
finding a solution that works while following certain constraints  
(backward compatibility?) must be a nasty headache.

> correct me if I have it wrong, I think the validator never
> really looks at the <?xml encoding="..." to figure out what
> the encoding is, it only verifies that this matches what it
> has "divined" elsewhere, e.g., based on lying HTTP servers.

I think the validator does look at the xml declaration as a source.
See e.g the following test case:

Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 14:33:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:59:06 UTC