IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376
chris at w3.org
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.
> 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
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 ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev