- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:58:44 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "tag@w3.org" <tag@w3.org>
On 2010-04-22 01:14, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 04/21/2010 06:15 PM, Eliot Graff wrote: >> Today, I uploaded an EARLY draft version of a polyglot spec, >> "HTML/XHTML Compatibility Authoring Guidelines." [1] > > A few QUICK comments: > >> If a polyglot document uses an encoding other than UTF8 or UTF16 > > UTF-16 is not valid for HTML5. I would recommend being more > prescriptive: simply recomment (or even require) utf-8 as it is the only > encoding guaranteed to be supported by all HTML and XML parsers. No, UTF-16 is perfectly acceptable for HTML, although generally UTF-8 is preferred. But if you are using it, then you should include the BOM indicating UTF-16LE or BE, and should not include the meta charset declaration, which would be redundant as the parser would need to know it's reading UTF-16 in order to parse it anyway. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 08:59:18 UTC