IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376

Chris Lilley chris at
Sun Apr 11 03:27:50 BST 1999

John Cowan wrote:
> Chris Lilley wrote:
> > Redundancy can be good; a
> > charset parameter and an XML encoding declaration that say the same
> > thing and work the same way, which is what I was suggesting, is good.
> Yes, indeed.  Nevertheless, the charset parameter has one
> advantage over the encoding declaration: it is guaranteed by MIME
> to be in ASCII, and thus always readable. 

Okay, true

> A document with a
> Content-Type of "text/xml;charset=cp-ebcdic-us" can be affirmatively
> rejected by a client that does not understand EBCDIC, whereas a
> client which has only the encoding declaration may *suppose* that
> the document is EBCDIC, based on the Appendix F heuristics, but cannot
> *know*.

On the contrary; it can suppose that, but having made that supposition
it can check it. It can parse the document, using the cp-ebcidic-us
conversion from bytes to characters, and having done so it can look in
the XML declaration for an encoding declaration, and one of two things

1) right there, it says encoding="cp-ebcidic-us"
2) it doesn't, so it halts with a fatal error.

Please note that I am describing normative behaviour, not non-normativce


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list