RE: [xsl] [OT] charset (was: how to get an NCR in the output?)

["Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>]

> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tobias Reif
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 6:44 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [xsl] [OT] charset (was: how to get an NCR in the output?)
>
>
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>
> > I think the RFC text you quoted supported what I've said:
>
> I don't think so, but let's agree to disagree ;)

No, I think we should find out what's written down.

As far as I understand:

- RFC2046 (MIME) says that the charset for text/* defaults to US-ASCII,
unless another spec defines a different default for the subtype.

- This is what RFC2616 (HTTP) does for text/html when served through HTTP
(section 3.7.1):

"The "charset" parameter is used with some media types to define the
character set (section 3.4) of the data. When no explicit charset parameter
is provided by the sender, media subtypes of the "text" type are defined to
have a default charset value of "ISO-8859-1" when received via HTTP. Data in
character sets other than "ISO-8859-1" or its subsets MUST be labeled with
an appropriate charset value. See section 3.4.1 for compatibility problems."

- In section 6, RFC2854 (MIME type text/html) repeats the facts mentioned
above and therefore (rightfully) strongly suggests to always supply the
media type.

Yes, it's a mess.

>  > if there is no
>  > charset parameter for "text/html", it defaults to ISO-8859-1
>
> Can you quote a normative source stating this so definitively?

That's
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.3.7.1.p.4>.

> In the RFC, there is, among other statements and quotes: "The default
> character set, which must be assumed in the absence of a charset
> parameter, is US-ASCII."

That's the base RFC for MIME which allows other specs to specify other
defaults for specific subtypes.

> If the IETF itself doesn't really know what's the default, how could we?
> In this spirit, let's put this OT thread to rest.

I think it's clear what the default is (at least as far as text/html is
served through HTTP). No, I don't think the default makes sense, but this is
what the spec says.

> As for the XML related issues, others discussed this extensively:, so we
> don't have to repeat it here, in an OT thread.
> Check
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200110/msg00919.html

I know. Therefore I strongly suggest not to use text/xml when it can be
avoided. For instance, when using XML in HTTP-based protocols (such as
WebDAV or SOAP), "application/xml" is preferrable.

Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list