This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
"4.2.5 The meta element" says; ]]The charset attribute on the meta element has no effect in XML documents, and is only allowed in order to facilitate migration to and from XHTML[[ Restrict this note to say that only a meta@charset element which contains the string "UTF-8" is allowed in XHTML documents. JUSTIFICATION: Unless one consideres element as a way to store meta information about the document, irrespective of XHTML or HTML, the permittance of this element in XHTML5 does not live up to its promise. Unless its value is "UTF-8", then - it does not "facilitate migration to and from XHTML". Only if the HTML5 syntax permits an XML declaration with the encoding declaration inside, can a non-UTF-8 value inside meta@charset be considered as facilitating migration to and from XHTML. Also see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0003 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0007 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0008
>Restrict this note to say that only a meta@charset element which contains > the string "UTF-8" is allowed in XHTML documents. What's the point is saying so in the note when the sentence right above the note says so already?
You right ... But to answer your question: Because the note (which stands out, than thus calls for attention), unlike the sentence before the note, makes it seem as if meta@charset is permitted regardless of its content. For example, in the debate in public-html before I filed this bug, I did not spot anyone that pointed to this limitation in the XHTML5 syntax as justification for not permitting anything more than UTF-8 inside the meta@charset element. I suggest the following clarification: <blockquote cite="http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/semantics#meta"> The charset attribute on the meta element has no effect in XML documents<ins>.</ins><del>,</del><ins>But the presence of the charset attribute with the value "UTF-8"</ins> is <del>only</del> allowed in order to facilitate migration to and from XHTML. </blockquote>
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: I couldn't come up with wording that wasn't more confusing than what is there now. The spec right now is pretty clear. It seems unlikely that anyone sane would go so far into the spec and then just read the green bit and not anything else (including the sentence immediately before it, which gives the note's context).
(In reply to comment #3) > Status: Rejected > Change Description: no spec change > Rationale: I couldn't come up with wording that wasn't more confusing than what > is there now. The spec right now is pretty clear. It seems unlikely that anyone > sane would go so far into the spec and then just read the green bit and not > anything else (including the sentence immediately before it, which gives the > note's context). I have provided a text for you - you don't need to come up with anything. The key point, if you want to formulate something yourself, is to _repeat_. State, _also_ in the green text, that you talk about meta element with UTF-8 as value. When it comes to "that anyone sane would go so far into the spec": the point is that this is the World Wid Web. People search and find small bits of info her and there. One need not have read the sentence before. I cited evidence/observation from the mailinglist. The green text is also the one which justifies why the rule is as it is - and it seems to me that "UTF-8" is the key part of that justification.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: The text you suggest is more confusing that what is there now — it makes it sound like the UTF-8 value is allowed for the given reason, but that other values are allowed also.