Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8671675
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 12, 20262026-06-12T19:00:24+00:00 2026-06-12T19:00:24+00:00

I thought I had the answer to my question when, on w3.org , I

  • 0

I thought I had the answer to my question when, on w3.org, I read:

The element containing the character encoding declaration must be serialized completely within the first 512 bytes of the document.

Then after being linked to whatwg.org by the html5boilerplate docs [http://cl.ly/K7Vt] and reading this, I wasn’t sure which was correct:

The element containing the character encoding declaration must be serialized completely within the first 1024 bytes of the document.

Which is correct?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-12T19:00:25+00:00Added an answer on June 12, 2026 at 7:00 pm

    The first document quoted is a non-normative W3C document aimed at describing HTML5 as a markup language in an understandable way. The second one is a WHATWG document that purports to be a “living standard” (an oxymoron) but is mostly in accordance with the W3C HTML5 document, which is a working draft, which means that it is nowhere near official (not necessarily endorsed even by all working group members), but meant to lead to the creation of a “standard” (W3C Recommendation) . In this case, the latter says the same as the WHATWG document.

    It seems to me that in W3C drafts, the number was raised from 512 to 1024 in the 05 April 2011 draft. The non-normative document presumably just hasn’t been updated in this respect.

    So, there is no standard, even in the loose W3C sense, so there is no definitive criterion for correctness. But apparently 1024 is supposed to be the lower bound. It should be understood as advice to authors; browsers may in fact apply a more liberal strategy.

    In practical terms, the meta tag specifying the encoding should appear before any other elements of the head part. Even if you use verbose markup with <html> and <head> tags, you will be nowhere near even the 512 characters limit. If you have loads of comments at the start of the HTML document, just remove them; there are better places for documentation.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

This is not properly a question but something more like a thought I had
I thought I had answered this question before thanks to StackOverFlow, but I hastily
I asked a very similar question and I approved an answer as I thought
I thought I had reasonable answers for this question at a recent interview, but
I am posting this question because I had a complete answer for this written
I asked a similar question just the other day, and thought I had it
This may seem like a programming 101 question and I had thought I knew
Okay, it appeared that I had an answer for this question, but I was
I had a thought today that maybe some of the javascript seniors can answer.
I had thought I could enumerate the types using IMetaDataImport.EnumTypeDefs and for each of

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.