Joerg Heinicke wrote: > > I saw your back port of the changed mime-type setting. > And have two questions that are not directly related to it: > 1. Is this compatible to my proposed patch at > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26997 ?? > 2. What about this patch at all? > > Sorry to nag you about this issue, but I got no response > until now. And I think fixing this issue is important as we > can not rely on correct browser charset recognition. Tomcat > probably follows only the spec. See also the dependent bug > for a more user-centric view. > Ok, I think there are different issues here.
One of them is the order in which the mime-type is evaluated. I think we should change if for the serializer as well in order to make it equal to the order used for the reader. So the order should be: - optional configured mime-type in the usage of the serializer (perhaps this can be removed) - configured mime-type in the configuration of the serializer - ask the serializer Now for the encoding. In general I would say that a serializer is configured with a mime-type and (perhaps) with an encoding. Now, a working solution should be that the serializer is configured with the combination of mime-type and encoding: <map:serializer mime-type="MT;ENCODING".../> This should work out of the box. It has only the disadvantage that you configure the encoding twice on the serializer. WDYT? Carsten
