<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Keith's Weblog: Comments on &quot;Understanding charsets on the web&quot;</title>
		<description>Keith's Weblog: Comments on &quot;Understanding charsets on the web&quot;, posted on February 11, 2005</description>
		<link>http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2005/Feb/11/HTTP.charset</link>

		<category>linkblog</category>
		<category>Programming</category>
		<language>en-us</language>
		

		<item>
			<title>by Sam Ruby</title>
			<link>http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2005/Feb/11/HTTP.charset#comment6987</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithdevens.com/weblog/6520#comment6987</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:23:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;I wish things were so clear.  In fact, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#no-charset&quot;&gt;W3C recommends otherwise for XML&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;And when you factor in web browsers that are broken, you end up doing like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/&quot;&gt;http://www.google.com/&lt;/a&gt; does, which is to omit the charset for HTML and put it in the meta tag.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>by Keith</title>
			<link>http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2005/Feb/11/HTTP.charset#comment6988</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithdevens.com/weblog/6520#comment6988</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:19:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;Well, that makes sense too. HTTP has primacy but if you don't specify the charset at the protocol level it defers to the content. Though, I didn't know that they recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#xml-media-types&quot;&gt;not using text/xml&lt;/a&gt; for XML... so, it seems we should all be using application/xml by default &lt;img class=&quot;smiley&quot; src=&quot;/images/smiley_mad.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Smiley mad&quot; /&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;As for how Google does it -- that doesn't bother me too much since we're not dealing with logical inconsistencies, merely implementation bugs. But the W3C's recommendations for XML presumably apply to XHTML as well, so I suppose that implies we should all be specifying the charset only in the (X)HTML anyway?&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>by Anne</title>
			<link>http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2005/Feb/11/HTTP.charset#comment6989</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithdevens.com/weblog/6520#comment6989</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;What is wrong with using application/xml by default? text/xml has issues and will be deprecated eventually.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;Those W3C recommendations seem a bit weird. Not sure why they do that. I'm also not sure since when the W3C is the authority to advice people on what to do on the HTTP level.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>by Keith</title>
			<link>http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2005/Feb/11/HTTP.charset#comment6991</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithdevens.com/weblog/6520#comment6991</guid>
			<pubDate>Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:12:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;Nothing's wrong with application/xml by default. It's just that it's like, &amp;quot;&lt;em&gt;Now&lt;/em&gt; you're telling us?&amp;quot;. If text/xml is no good I'd have preferred they never created it. Now I have to change my code, and what's worse is that I don't know if there are any compatibility issues between text/xml vs. application/xml. For example, will anyone have a problem if I start serving my RSS feed as application/xml instead of text/xml?&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a id=&quot;fnp1&quot; href=&quot;#fn1&quot;&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; So, because I don't know, I'll have to check accept headers for application/xml and serve text/xml as a fallback.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;Plus, if text/xml has problems and will be deprecated eventually, why isn't it deprecated now? That's what deprecated means. It doesn't make sense for anything to be in the position of &amp;quot;going to be deprecated&amp;quot;. &lt;img class=&quot;smiley&quot; src=&quot;/images/smiley_side.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Smiley&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;&lt;em style=&quot;font-style: normal; text-decoration: underline&quot;&gt;Footnotes:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a id=&quot;fn1&quot; href=&quot;#fnp1&quot;&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt;: And XML-RPC? Though, XML-RPC is always POST, so maybe the issues with text/xml don't matter?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>by Anne</title>
			<link>http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2005/Feb/11/HTTP.charset#comment6996</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithdevens.com/weblog/6520#comment6996</guid>
			<pubDate>Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:48:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;There are no problems. application/xml is accepted as well. It just is that text/xml has a default charset of US-ASCII and application/xml does not. (Default is UTF-8.)&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
