Which one I should use in order to cover max. browser versions 1 or 2 or both are equivalent.
1.
<meta charset="utf-8">
2.
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Asked
Active
Viewed 209 times
0
Adil Abbasi
- 3,161
- 1
- 40
- 35
-
@Quentin very similar but a bit different concern. I want to ask is, in old browsers where html5 doctype is not recognized the meta will be valid or not. – Adil Abbasi Dec 22 '13 at 10:59
-
No, it is a duplicate. This is a more *specific* question, but still a subset of the duplicate and answered there. – Quentin Dec 22 '13 at 11:00
-
1Check this link https://code.google.com/p/doctype-mirror/wiki/MetaCharsetAttribute says – Kamran Ahmed Dec 22 '13 at 11:00
2 Answers
0
You have provided us and yourself with the answer!
They both are equivalent (to be noted: Since, HTML5)! :/ So use them as per usage or your choice.
The only benefit for me, would be that the second one is lesser to type so it would save some time! Otherwise, they both are just same.
Afzaal Ahmad Zeeshan
- 15,669
- 12
- 55
- 103
-1
With the first meta you are only defining the character set of the page, with the second one your defining the content type of the page plus the character set. Second one is more complete, and in some cases it will prevent errors.
Entropyk
- 117
- 4
-
No user agent has *ever* paid attention to the media type in a meta tag. – Quentin Dec 22 '13 at 10:53
-
-
No. Email clients will use the Content-Type SMTP header (or the equivalent bit in a multipart MIME email). – Quentin Dec 22 '13 at 10:58