[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unrecognized encodings (was Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results)
- From: Mike Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:34:15 -0600 (MDT)
> But there's no reason why processors shouldn't recognize other common
> aliases, no reason to create a "must" where the spec doesn't have one.
I see, but given that a fatal error must be produced if the encoding is
unknown, and given that this clause says that the encoding "should" be
treated as unknown if it is not listed in the IANA charset registry, it
follows that "UTF8" should not be accepted.
If our philosophy is to always err on the side of leniency in what we
accept, then what is the point of this clause at all, since we "should"
ignore it and carry on under the assumption that "UTF8" == "UTF-8"? :)
Even in light of Tim Bray's explanation of the history behind the clause,
I see it as being unreconcilable. However, I'm perfectly willing to live
with ignoring it.
mike j. brown, software engineer at | xml/xslt: http://skew.org/xml/
webb.net in denver, colorado, USA | personal: http://hyperreal.org/~mike/