Timeline for answer to Is the "charset" attribute required with HTML5? by hrunting
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2020 at 1:50 | comment | added | Elijah M |
But, the W3C link @hrunting provided states that You should always specify the encoding used for an HTML or XML page.
|
|
| Feb 3, 2013 at 6:47 | comment | added | Jukka K. Korpela | @twiz, a common scenario is a UTF-8 encoded document with BOM. | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 5:57 | vote | accept | twiz | ||
| Feb 3, 2013 at 5:57 | comment | added | twiz | @JukkaK.Korpela I don't know a lot about encoding, so just wondering, what would be an example of a common scenario where the charset might be left out? | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 5:37 | comment | added | Jukka K. Korpela |
@twiz, it is necessary to use a meta tag to declare encoding when the server sends a Content-Type header without charset parameter and you cannot affect this (and you are not using UTF-8). This is not an uncommon scenario. Moreover, the meta tag is relevant if a page is saved locally by a user. (When opened later, there will be no HTTP headers.)
|
|
| Feb 3, 2013 at 4:51 | comment | added | twiz | That's really interesting. I would have thought that the purpose of the meta tag would be to override everything else. It seems like it would actually be rather difficult to have a situation where the meta tag would be necessary. Am I missing something? | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 4:38 | history | edited | hrunting | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added link to W3C rules for preference order
|
| Feb 3, 2013 at 4:36 | comment | added | hrunting | HTTP header, BOM, followed by meta tag. I'll update the answer with a link I found from W3C answering this very question. | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 4:24 | comment | added | twiz |
So what would be the order of precedence if the Content-type, BOM, and <meta charset=""> all had different values?
|
|
| Feb 3, 2013 at 4:15 | history | answered | hrunting | CC BY-SA 3.0 |