23650 2013-10-27 21:02:17 +0000 Consider making the label for utf-8 "UTF-8" 2013-10-28 12:20:58 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG Encoding unspecified All All RESOLVED DUPLICATE 19395 P2 normal Unsorted 1 Ms2ger annevk duerst mike www-international sideshowbarker+encodingspec oldest_to_newest 95411 0 Ms2ger 2013-10-27 21:02:17 +0000 Chrome and Gecko seem to use the upper case version, IE might use lower case though. 95413 1 duerst 2013-10-28 01:56:41 +0000 Charset/encoding labels are case-insensitive all over the Internet, so with respect to functionality, this shouldn't matter at all. And the spec explicitly says so, please look for http://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/#ascii-case-insensitive. If it makes a difference, then something somewhere (browser or server or other) is broken, and should be fixed. If this is indeed the case, it would be good to have examples. As for whether the spec should use 'utf-8' or 'UTF-8', I personally would prefer 'UTF-8', because being an acronym, that's how it's written in books and other documentation. But looking at the spec, that would mean that many other labels (starting with US-ASCII and ISO-8859-1) would have to be upper-cased, too. As this is a purely editorial issue, we can leave that to the editor. An alternative is to provide a pull request. What I'd like to avoid is to change the case of the file names for the data files for the encodings. Software that handles that may not do case-insensitive there. (But if we change these too, that's not the end of the world either.) 95418 2 Ms2ger 2013-10-28 10:13:37 +0000 This is not an editorial issue; it affects what document.characterSet returns. 95427 3 annevk 2013-10-28 12:19:00 +0000 IE10 uses lowercase. I think last I checked Gecko used lowercase for gb18030 or some such. Gecko was not consistent and neither was Chrome. All lowercase seemed better therefore as it's easier to predict. 95428 4 annevk 2013-10-28 12:20:58 +0000 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 19395 ***