[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376

• From: MURATA Makoto <murata@a...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 16:10:35 +0900

Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> MURATA Makoto wrote:
> > I strongly agree.   This is the best approach.  I sincerely hope that such
> > an attempt will happen at W3C.
> 
> I have spoken to the Jigsaw team about this, explained the urgency, and
> hope to see an implementation in a forthcoming Jigsaw release. They said
> it was about an hours work or so.

That is great!
 
I think that further discussion in this mailing list about the justification 
of the default for the charset parameter is not very useful.  The discussion 
should be moved to the ietf-xml-mime mailing list.

The current specification is a result of loooooong discussion.  Nobody 
is completely happy with it, but nobody is completely unhappy with it 
(rememember that application/xml is also available).  In their review 
report of XML, the W3C I18N WG asked the XML CG not to change the precedence 
rule of the charset parameter.  If I create an I-D ignoring this request, I 
would be ignoring the I18N WG as welll as strong oppositions from HTTP 
people.  

Since I intend to move the discussion to the IETF-xml-mime mailing list, 
I merely state some facts here.
 
> By drawing this
> distinction, are you saying that RFC 2376 does not apply to HTTP and
> only applies to email?

RFC 2376 quite carefully mentions both HTTP and real MIME.

> Well, if a US-based group recommends US-ASCII that should not really be
> a surprise ;-) However, while US-ASCII is compatible with UTF-8 it is
> not the same; and it is not compatible with UTF-16. So, it is a very odd
> choice for a default.

IETF I18N guideline documents (RFC 2277 and RFC2130) recommend UTF-8 as the 
default.  When the WWW was invented, 8559-1 was the default.  US-ASCII is 
the intersection of the two.

Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> Yes, but I was not referring to Appendix F. I was referring to section
> 4.3.3 which is normative:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#charencoding
> 
>    Parsed entities which are stored in an encoding other than UTF-8 
>    or UTF-16 must begin with a text declaration containing an encoding 
>    declaration [...]
 
I agree that this is misleading.  It only talks about the case that 
MIME headers are not available  (I will send out a request for clarification).  


Chris Lilley wrote:
> > RFC2376 supercedes it, as intended by the XML WG. 
> 
> Supercedes Appendix F, or superceeds the whole of the XML
> Recommendation? I assume you mean the former. 

Yes.

Makoto
 
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
 
Tel: +81-44-812-7230   Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata@a...

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
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@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376
    • From: David Brownell <db@e...>

• References:
  • Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376
    • From: Chris Lilley <chris@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: multiple encoding specs (Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376)
• Next by Date: Re: Comments Appreciated on Magazine Based on XML/XSL
• Previous by thread: Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376
• Next by thread: Re: IE5.0 does not conform to RFC2376
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread