- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:49:57 +0200
- To: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
- Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote: > The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it > provides correct behavior in all cases. Do you mean this one? http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/StringEncoding I see the following problems after a cursory glance: 1) It doesn't support streaming encoding/decoding. 2) BINARY and ISO-8859-1 are defined as functionally equivalent. It would be better to keep BINARY and get rid of real ISO-8859-1, because normally the Web platform doesn't support real ISO-8859-1 and ISO-8859-1 is an alias for Windows-1252. 3) UTF-16 is supported, which is bad, because it's a terrible idea to use UTF-16 for interchange. 4) It says "Browsers MAY support additional encodings." This is a huge non-interoperability loophole. The spec should have a small and fixed set of supported encodings that everyone MUST support and supporting other encodings should be a "MUST NOT". What's the motivation for supporting encodings other than UTF-8 and BINARY? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 14:33:58 UTC