Unknown text/* subtypes
Frank Ellermann
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Jan 15 04:12:32 CET 2008
Ian Hickson wrote:
> For example HTML4 says to not default to any encoding at all [1]
[...]
Yes, but HTTP has to work for plain text, pre-HTML 4, etc., and I
think HHTP needs its own idea of what is allowed in a HTTP header.
If one side refuses to say what the body is the other side needs
a working assumption for the job at hand (= HTTP transmission).
How browsers display a body (if at all) is a different question.
"Assume it's something remotely related to ASCII, i.e. all octets
that could be ASCII actually are ASCII" is good enough for HTTP,
isn't it ? I don't see where "assume Latin-1" is actually needed
today with respect to *HTTP*, even for HTML 2 (or arguably 3.2).
The W3C validator ignores this HTML detail - AFAIK I'm the only
user who ever asked if that's as it should be. It is irrelevant
outside of validator torture tests... :-)
> it would seem pointless for HTTP to try to define something
> here: it would just get ignored.
I think we mean the same thing when I propose that it's pointless
to define "something different from MIME" in the HTTP spec., a
normative MIME reference (+ explanation of the change) will do.
Frank
More information about the Ietf-types
mailing list