On 2007.12.29 at 11:41:48 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
> >From 2.2.x/STATUS:
> >
> > * Various modules: Add explicit charset to the output of various
> >modules to work around possible cross-site scripting flaws affecting
> >web browsers that do not derive the response character set as required
> >by RFC2616.
> >
> >Two comments on that: the first trivial, the second more serious:
> >
> >1. Is ISO-8859-1 right for these? Sure, it's not wrong (unless
> > as in (2) below), but why not label it as plain ASCII?
>
> They are all text/html. RFC2616 clearly defined them as ISO-8859-1
> in the absence of any other charset tag.
But in pratice lot of people use sometihng other. For filenames as well.
I think that as modern trend in operating system distributions is going
to use some version of Unicode for filesystems (UCS2 in NTFS, Utf8 in
most modern Linux distributions) utf-8 is much more sensible default.
