At 00:10 06/03/13, Ned Freed wrote:
>(cc'ing the ietf-types list since this doesn't seem like an appropriate topic
>> The charset parameter is mandatory in the MIME content-type
>Actually, I don't know of a single case where this is true.
I don't, either.
>All media type
>pararameters are either type or subtype specific, so there is no general rule
>that applies to all charset parameters. Nevertheless, the charset parameters
>that attach to the text top-level type are optional, as is the charset
>parameter on application/xml. And making the parameter optional doesn't even
>imply that there's a default. For exmaple, In the case of XML the allowed
>charsets for unlabelled material are intentionally limited so they can be
>determined by inspection.
Almost correct, but wrong: In the case of application/xml, if there
is no 'charset' parameter on the mime type, information inside the
XML document is used to determine the character encoding according
to a clearly defined bootstrap algorithm. If you start a document
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='foobar'?>
then it's in the "foobar" encoding. That doesn't mean that your
parser will be able to understand the "foobar" encoding, XML
parsers are only required to understand UTF-8 and UTF-16.
>And fifth, you don't seem to appreciate the difficulty of getting everyone to
>agree to actually use filesystem metadata to solve any of these problems. This
>last is a complete showstopper and I dispair of there ever being significant
>progress in this area because of it.
I fully agree with this at the present stage. But there is still
the hope that this problem will solve itself in 5 or 10 years,
like other, similar problem have been solved or are being solved
(ASCII for very basic text exchange, Unicode for worldwide text
exchange, XML for structured data exchange, and so on).