[ follow-up to developer list posting ] * Erik Abele wrote:
>> I removed the >> meta-content-type header, which is just bad news in my opinion. > > I'm a little bit unsure about the meta-content-type header: the XHTML > 1.0 specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/) recommends to use > both methods to define the content-type on existing/older user agents. > > an extract of REC-xhtml1-20000126 follows: [...] > To specify a character encoding in the document, use both the encoding > attribute specification on the xml declaration (e.g. <?xml > version="1.0" encoding="EUC-JP"?>) and a meta http-equiv statement > (e.g. <meta http-equiv="Content-type" content='text/html; > charset="EUC-JP"'�/>). The value of the encoding attribute of the xml > processing instruction takes precedence. hmmm, I think the quoted paragraph only affects a decision between <?xml encoding="..." ?> and <meta http-equiv="..." content=".." />. Additionally - IIRC - there's nowhere any iso-8859-1 character, therefore the character encoding declaration is more or less useless ;-) (Character Entities are written in us-ascii...) > Maybe we should put the meta-header in again ? IMHO: -1 (not a binding vote, I know ;-) nd -- print "Just Another Perl Hacker"; # Andr� Malo, <http://www.perlig.de/> # --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
