[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Some text that may be useful for the update of RFC 2376
Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, MURATA Makoto wrote:
> > Are you saying that each format should invent their own rules for
> > indicating the charset? My understanding was (and still is) that
> > you as an I18n guy at W3C are promoting a single generalized solution
> > for all textual formats.
> Please let us stick with the rationale for having text/xml and
> application/xml in the first place: the former would be useful
> in all the cases where transcoding/newline-fiddling/defaulting-to-
> text-viewer was useful and the latter was useful when we want to
> prevent trancoding/newline-fiddling/defaulting-to-text-viewer.
Yes. Though it is not clear what a non-XML-aware transcodes would do when
swizzling an XML document between encodings. Since it can't use entities or
NCRs, what does it use for characters that do not fall within the
repertoire of te encoding it is converting to? Question marks?
> It should always be an error of some kind if the charset parameter
> does not agree with the encoding attribute (or other Appendix F
> mechanism). Only given that constraint is it useful to make the
> charset parameter significant.
I agree, but then given that constraint the charset parameter is
superfluous since it adds no new information. However, I might be prepared
to conceed that it is not too harmful as long as it is constrained tosay
what the XML encoding says, and for it to be an error for these to differ.