[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



In message "Re: Some text that may be useful for the update of RFC 2376",
Chris Lilley wrote...
 >
 >
 >MURATA Makoto wrote:

 >> We are all aware of this problem.  We are also aware of transcoders
 >> which changes the charset parameter but does not rerwrite encoding
 >> declarations.
 >
 >Yes - such behaviour is clearly broken. Since a transcoder is changing many
 >or all the other bytes in the file, expecting it to also correctly update
 >the encoding declaration rather than leaving it broken is not asking too
 >much.

I think that such a transcoder is very helpful because it works for 
all textual formats and also because it is very efficient.

 >> The charset parameter is such a solution. 
 >
 >It is one such solution. There are better ones, and indeed a much better
 >one in the XML specification.

It works only for XML.  It is not bad, when the MIME header is not available.  
But when it is available, we must rely on the charset parameter.

 >> We should not try to bend
 >> specifications only to invent an ad-hoc solution for a particular format.
 >
 >I can only agree with that sentence by replacing "format" with "protocol".

You are advocating different in-band encoding signatures for different 
formats.  I think that this is a significant burden to users and speficiation 
developers.


----
MURATA Makoto  muraw3c@xxxxxxxxxxxxx