W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: [whatwg] Is EBCDIC support needed for not breaking the Web?

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:37:24 +0000 (UTC)
To: Benjamin Smedberg <bsmedberg@mozilla.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-international@w3.org, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0808290935410.20254@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
> 
> > Firefox and Opera being able get away with not supporting EBCDIC 
> > flavors suggests that EBCDIC-based encodings cannot be particularly 
> > Web-relevant. Even if saying that browsers MUST NOT support them might 
> > end up being a dead letter, it seems that it would be feasible to say 
> > that browsers SHOULD NOT support them or at least MUST NOT let a 
> > heuristic detector guess EBCDIC (for security reasons).
> 
> Gecko does support UTF-7 and will continue to do so because UTF-7 is 
> still in use as a character set for mail encoding and multi-part MIME 
> documents.

Would it be possible to limit this support to e-mail? Supporting UTF-7 on 
the Web has been the source of security bugs and really doesn't seem 
necessary outside of e-mail.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 09:37:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:22 GMT