[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] A non-complaint
From: |
Anthony J. Bentley |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] A non-complaint |
Date: |
Thu, 07 Aug 2014 08:13:13 -0600 |
Ralph Corderoy writes:
> Hi David,
>
> Ken's pointed out the <meta> wasn't in the original message; were you
> seeing that in Chrome's view of the source? It might add it based on
> the default it chose. Ken said the HTML default was Windows-1252; it
> seems surprising Windows was ever a default. I thought it was
> ISO-8859-1 up until HTML 5 which explicitly states it's UTF-8 along with
> a system for guessing based on the byte values.
As far as I know, HTML does not assume UTF-8. Before HTML5 it deferred to
the HTTP default which for a long time was ISO-8859-1 for text/html (barring
an explicit charset declaration at the HTTP level). But I think this
changed in a recent RFC. And I think HTML5 might no longer defer to HTTP in
this way, at least for documents without a charset at either level.
The Windows-1252 thing is separate: in HTML5 ISO-8859-1 is always treated
as Windows-1252, due to how common such incorrectly marked documents are on
the web.
--
Anthony J. Bentley
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), norm, 2014/08/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), Ralph Corderoy, 2014/08/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), Jerrad Pierce, 2014/08/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), Ralph Corderoy, 2014/08/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), Paul Fox, 2014/08/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] (no subject), Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/07
- [Nmh-workers] (no subject), Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/07
Re: [Nmh-workers] A non-complaint, David Levine, 2014/08/06
Re: [Nmh-workers] A non-complaint, David Levine, 2014/08/06
Re: [Nmh-workers] A non-complaint, David Levine, 2014/08/07
Re: [Nmh-workers] A non-complaint, David Levine, 2014/08/07
Re: [Nmh-workers] A non-complaint, David Levine, 2014/08/08