• From: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@a...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:36:43 +0900

> 
> The problematic thing is that RFC3023 and RFC2616 specify defaults in 
> case it's missing, and these defaults are even conflicting.

In my understanding, IESG approved the default in RFC 2616 only because 8859-1 
was so common on the Web at that time.

IESG instructed the authors of RFC 2376 (the predecessor of RFC 3023) to 
use US-ASCII as the default even when the MIME entity is transmitted via HTTP.
Since XML was new, IESG did not want to use 8859-1.

> For RFC2616bis, the plan is not to specify a default anymore (again: 
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/20>).

If this happens, we should revise RFC 3023 about charset defaulting in
the case of text/xml over HTTP.  Everything about encoding of text/xml
is inherited from MIME and HTTP.

Cheers,

-- 
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@a...>

• References:
  • Re: xml over http - RFC 3023
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: xml over http - RFC 3023
    • From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@g...>