Re: Font Selection
- From: Danilo Segan <dsegan gmx net>
- To: Noah Levitt <nlevitt columbia edu>
- Cc: GNOME I18N List <gnome-i18n gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Font Selection
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 22:15:29 +0200
Noah Levitt wrote:
>On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:49:41 +0200, Danilo Segan wrote:
>>It will hardly happen, because it will invalidate and make many current
>>web pages incompatible with that kind of browser.
>Yeah, but those pages are broken. They should be specifying
>their encoding. I've been using UTF-8 as the default
>encoding in my web browser for a while, and I mostly don't
RFC 2616 quite clearly states in section "3.4.1 Missing character sets":
> Some HTTP/1.0 software has interpreted Content-Type header without
charset parameter incorrectly to mean "recepient should guess." Senders
wishing to defeat this behaviour MAY include a charset parameter even
when the charset is ISO-8859-1 and SHOULD do so when it is known that it
will not confuse the recepient.
So, pages which don't send the charset parameter with value "ISO-8859-1"
(if they use it) are "conditionally compliant" (because of the SHOULD,
they're not "unconditionally compliant"). So, at the very least I
wouldn't call them "broken".
By the way, I'm also using UTF-8 as default encoding for at least 2
years, and I *did* experience problems when visiting such pages.
So, there're some problems with the tradition, but nothing which can't
easily be fixed in the future (all my Apache installations have
"AddDefaultCharset UTF-8" which "fixes" this, and the "official" Apache
distribution comes with a sample containing "AddDefaultCharset
ISO-8859-1" or similar, thereby helping those pages become
] [Thread Prev