• To: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Subject: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:02:54 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200401140201.i0E21to01550@d...>
• References: <40048CA2.2070609@g...> <r02000200-1028-D1176A3A460611D8AD220003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]> <5B1A714A-461A-11D8-8ADE-000A95CCC59E@x...> <200401140201.i0E21to01550@d...>

On Jan 13, 2004, at 6:01 PM, Joe English wrote:

> True, but the aggregator as a whole might still accept it --
> possibly by noticing that the encoding is mislabelled and
> munging the data into proper UTF-8 before passing it to the
> parser.

Wow, is there any software that actually does this?  I hadn't 
encountered it.

> In fact any aggregator that doesn't do something like this
> is doomed to fail -- *nobody's* feed has the encoding labelled
> properly.  (Well, maybe not "nobody", but certainly not very many.)

On the contrary; the vast majority of them are correct. -Tim

• References:
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@g...>
  • Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Next by Date: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Previous by thread: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Next by thread: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread