Le 7 nov. 2006 à 06:32, David Woolley a écrit :
>> Hmm yes, this seems redundant in a way.
>> However, I am strongly convinced that the reason to introduce the
>> HTML attribute was to give authors a "syntactically cleaner" way to
>> specify their character encoding.
>
> I would say there were a couple of reasons:
>
> 1) documents may be served by protocols, e.g. direct file access,  
> which
> do not carry character set metadata.
>
> 2) most people learn HTML on servers where the ability to configure  
> the
> server is blocked for commercial, or, maybe, security reasons.  They
> continue to avoid congiguring servers, even when they do have full
> access (although some people argue that, even then, departmental
> politics mean that the server configuration and content are completely
> divorced).

* URIs (information space) not manageable by the owner of the  
information space.
   There is still a lot of work to do here. Make Web servers  
configurable for some parts by users if needed/wanted. Which is  
somehow funny, because the whole new trend is about "User Generated  
Content" (cough), but with tied wrists.
* Many people confuse files and information resources. I guess  
because the desktop has been "disconnected from the web". The  
filesystem is not working with HTTP in mind. For example,  
transferring files by FTP screws-up many things.



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ 
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/ 
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***