Unknown text/* subtypes
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Dec 18 19:17:01 CET 2007
Julian Reschke wrote:
> It would be nice if somebody could provide some insight why this ever
> made it into HTTP. Was that just an attempt to allow text/html encoded
> in latin1 to be served without charset parameter?
Some parts of this puzzle: RFC 2070 introduced an "ideally anything
is Unicode" concept, later adopted by HTML 4+, XHTML 1+, and XML 1+.
AFAIK HTML 3.2 and maybe also HTML 3 still didn't have this feature.
As far as RFC numbers mean something 2070 was published "after" 2068,
both say January 1997, and "the law" 2277 was clearly a year later.
RFC 2068 (HTTP/1.1) was the successor of 1945 (HTTP/1.0, May 1996),
2070 (HTML i18n) was the successor of 1866 (HTML 2, November 1995).
Tim Berners-Lee, one co-author of RFC 1866 and 1945, wrote in 1866:
| NOTE - To support non-western writing systems, a larger character
| repertoire will be specified in a future version of HTML. The
| document character set will be [ISO-10646], or some subset that
| agrees with [ISO-10646]; in particular, all numeric character
| references must use code positions assigned by [ISO-10646].
Speculation, in May 1996 it made sense that HTTP/1.0 can transport
HTML 2 "as is", default Latin-1, and it took Harald and Martin some
months to fix this in RFC 2070 and 2277, too late for RFC 2068, and
RFC 2616 simply inherited "default Latin-1" wholesale.
More information about the Ietf-types