Re: [tlug] Firefox 3.0.1 doesn't respect <meta http-equiv="content-type">

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Curt Sampson writes:

 > On 2008-09-12 15:43 +0900 (Fri), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > 
 > > But the META element *is* a header!!
 > 
 > It is patently not. It is part of the document,

Well, yes, but that document does contains a header used for supplying
various kinds of metadata.  That's why the elements are called HEAD,
and BODY!  This is just encapsulation of one protocol in another.

 > and in fact, from my quick reading of the standard, is usually
 > mis-used, and certainly is misused by you in your case (supplying a
 > charset when the server does not supply one).

If you're talking about the original file mada.html, then you've
clearly misread the HTML 4.01 standard.  Please quote chapter and
verse in support of this strange claim.  I can't find such a
prohibition, but Ch.5 quite clearly envisions the META tag being used
as I did (and remember, that usage dates from 1997 or so, when content
negotiation was still a dream).

 > Your example also is incorrect in this way; the HTML spec
 > says nothing about MIME via SMTP

What's incorrect about an example of something that clearly is quite
prevalent, if bloody annoying, as HTML email?

 > Were your examples intended to be examples of bad usage?

They're obviously not intended to be examples of usage at all, since
the spec as currently written tells the browser to ignore the META
tag.  WITH CURRENT STANDARDS, THERE IS NO WAY TO EXPRESS WHAT I WANT.
That's the problem!

 > > But I wasn't talking about what the *server* should do.  I'm talking
 > > about what the *client* should do.  AFAIK Curt understood that.
 > 
 > The client, it appears, should do nothing, and entirely ignore the META
 > tags.

According to the standard, yes.  I conform to standards as a matter of
best practice, but that doesn't mean I have to like them!