On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:45:19 +0200
"Mike M. Volokhov" <mishka@apk.od.ua> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:38:29 +0000 (UTC)
> Min Sik Kim <minskim@NetBSD.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Module Name:	htdocs
> > Committed By:	minskim
> > Date:		Fri Nov 26 21:38:29 UTC 2004
> > 
> > Modified Files:
> > 	htdocs/ru: .htaccess index.html
> > 
> > Log Message:
> > Set correct default encoding.
> > 
> > 
> > To generate a diff of this commit:
> > cvs rdiff -r1.1.1.1 -r1.2 htdocs/ru/.htaccess
> > cvs rdiff -r1.334 -r1.335 htdocs/ru/index.html
> > 
> > Please note that diffs are not public domain; they are subject to the
> > copyright notices on the relevant files.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for handling this, but ru/index.html already contains the
> encoding specified:
> 
> mishka@nostromo:14> grep -i koi8 ru/index.html
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=KOI8-r">
> <meta content="text/html; charset=koi8-r" http-equiv="Content-Type">
>
> Thus, could you please remove the duplicate

It is not necessarily redundant.  We have many mirror sites, and some
of them (like www.NetBSD.org) may force charset in HTTP response
headers, while others expect the meta tag to dictate charset.  So we
need both unless we make sure that all mirrors have the same web
server configurations.

> and set the encoding to non
> case-mixed (i.e. "KOI8-R" or "koi8-r").

I copied it from httpd.conf shipped with apache-2.x.  I don't know why
they are using the mixed-case encoding name.  I'll modify both
.htaccess and ru/index.html so that they have "KOI8-R".

> Next, maybe it would be better to avoid server-supplied encoding
> instead of having set own one in .htaccess?

IMHO, setting charset in .htaccess is a safe way, since it would work
both with and without server-supplied encoding.

-- 
Min Sik Kim