I don't agree. The purpose of a HTTP-EQUIV meta tag is to substitute for
the header when the resource is being loaded from a non-HTTP source.
You are entitled to your opinion.
I guess this was also the thinking of the W3C.
But it is bad, and this is why:
The HTTP response header is decided by the HTTP server, bases usually on a
global configuration, controled by the ISP.
The HTTP-EQUIV meta tag is something I add, it applies to the content of
a file that I created, it's mine, and I know way better what's inside.
So why would the ISP decision override mine?
Use case:
1. I have international customers fully Unicode aware.
2. For them I save the html files as UTF-8 (less pain overall)
3. My ISP configured it's server to send ISO-8891-1 in the HTTP response
Why should the ISP decision take precedence over mine?
What is the solution here? Ask the ISP to switch to UTF-8?
They might have thousands of customers that don't care, or the change might
break something for them.
Change the ISP? Ok, possible.
But why all this pain? Because of a bad decision in the standard.
--
Mihai Nita [Microsoft MVP, Visual C++]
http://www.mihai-nita.net
------------------------------------------
Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email