* Thomas DeWeese wrote:
The TAG finding has no impact whatsoever on SVG Viewer conformance requirements, I think the TAG will happily clarify this if you ask for it on www-tag. You would need to argue that this is allowed by the SVG Viewer conformance requirements. I think it is clear that this is not allowed by those conformance requirements.
Huh? If the network layer detects that the HTTP response is in fact GZip encoded even though the header isn't set and decodes it why is this a problem?
Because such software does not interoperate with software that does not perform such error correction. Would you also argue that for a ISO-8859- 1 encoded document Content-Type: image/svg+xml <?xml version="1.0"?> ... <text>Björn</text> ... the "network layer" may detect that the resource is ISO-8859-1 encoded and decodes it? The XML 1.0 Recommendation requires here, too, that the processor aborts normal processing and reports a fatal error to the application. I am not sure where you draw the line between errors this "network layer" may correct.
I'll agree with this. However you should then agree that there is no problem if the SVG mime-type registration states that there is _no_ charset parameter for image/svg+xml, and merely suggests that if a processor encounters this non-existing parameter that it should be ignored.
The proposed registration implies "MUST ignore", changing that to SHOULD ignore is even worse as it explicitly allows non-interoperable behavior. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/