W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: Encoding Standard at F2F

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 00:30:36 +0100
To: "Ishii, Koji a | Koji | EBJB" <koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com>
Cc: Jungshik SHIN (신정식) <jshin1987@gmail.com>, Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20121105003036228066.2121fb80@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Ishii, Koji a | Koji | EBJB, Sun, 4 Nov 2012 22:56:01 +0000:
> Yeah, I understand you're talking about KR, not JP. Sorry if I look not.
> But my point is, Trident or Gecko can be used in e-mail programs. If 
> iso-2022-KR is still used on e-mails, even if you do not see in web 
> pages, wouldn't it be better to include?

UTF-7 is supported in Opera Mail and Thunderbird 17, but not by Opera 
Web browser and Firefox 17. (Apparently, Thunderbid 17 only supports 
UTF-7 for viewing, and not for composing.)  So it is already 
established that there does not need to be full correspondence between 
what is supported in e-mail and what is supported on the Web. 

Leif Halvard Silli

> 2012/11/04 14:21、"Jungshik SHIN (신정식)" <jshin1987@gmail.com> のメ
> ッセージ:
>> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Norbert Lindenberg 
>> <w3@norbertlindenberg.com> wrote:
>>> What about email archives on the web? I'd be surprised if there 
>>> weren't any that just take the bytes of subjects and bodies of 
>>> email messages and stuff them into HTML frames. Even Yahoo Mail and 
>>> Hotmail did that until a few years ago.
>> It's very unfortunate that two major web mail services had been 
>> broken in such a horrible way until a few years ago. ;-)  It's good 
>> for everybody that they have been fixed since.
>> Anyway, I don't think that a potential existence of 
>> antiquated/broken email (list) archiving programs is a good 
>> justification to keep ISO-2022-KR (and GB-HZ). 
>> BTW, when ISO-2022-KR was around in 1990's, the dominant MUA of the 
>> time (sendmail) was patched (or combined with MDAs like procmail), 
>> at most Korean Unix hosts, to convert incoming emails in ISO-2022-KR 
>> to EUC-KR. So, the number of emails kept in ISO-2022-KR at mail(ing 
>> list) archives is much smaller than the actual number of emails 
>> exchanged in ISO-2022-KR.
>> Jungshik 
>>> Norbert
>>> On Nov 4, 2012, at 19:23 , Ishii, Koji a | Koji | EBJB wrote:
>>>> I think the spec should cover all relevant technologies around 
>>> W3C, not only the web pages. I know little about how often 
>>> ISO-2022-KR is used in other places than Web, but you should also 
>>> pay attention to e-mail and other careers of W3C technologies.
>>>> Microsoft once disabled automatic detection of ISO-2022-JP in 
>>> MS10-090 for the security concern but turned it on again inMS11-003 
>>> due to its bad impact. As you said and as Kuro confirmed, 
>>> ISO-2022-JP is still an important encoding for the W3C to support.
>>>> Are you sure ISO-2022-KR and GB-HZ are not, considering all 
>>> places W3C technologies are used including e-mail, TV, etc.?
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Koji
>>>> From: Jungshik SHIN (신정식) [mailto:jshin1987@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:20 PM
>>>> To: Anne van Kesteren
>>>> Cc: www-international@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Encoding Standard at F2F
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Thank you for the note.
>>>> I wonder what consideration has been given to the inclusion of 
>>> ISO-2022-KR and GB-HZ, two 7-bit encodings that are extremely rare 
>>> on the web (if used at all) and are 'security risks' (in a sense) 
>>> like other 7-bit encodings (e.g. UTF-7 that is not included).
>>>> We cannot drop ISO-2022-JP lightly because it's still used 
>>> somewhere even though it's much less widely used than EUC-JP or 
>>> Shift-JIS.
>>>> OTOH, ISO-2022-KR has never been meant for the web and it's safe 
>>> to say that virtually no web page uses it. It's designed for emails 
>>> (RFC 1557) in early 1990's and it got out of favor  even for emails 
>>> in late 1990's because either EUC-KR (later UTF-8) with 8bit ESMTP 
>>> or EUC-KR with base64/qp worked just fine. For web pages, there's 
>>> absolutely no reason to use ISO-2022-KR from the beginning and it's 
>>> not used.
>>>> For the last 20 years, I've seen web pages (other than test 
>>> pages) in that encoding only once or twice. I'm a Korean speaker 
>>> and I've visited numerous web pages.
>>>> To a slightly less extent, the same should hold for GB-HZ. It 
>>> started its life to use in Usenet (and email), but using that on 
>>> the web does not make much sense. I can't say about GB-HZ as 
>>> strongly as about ISO-2022-KR, but my experience with Chrome 
>>> development (below) is an indication that it's virtually unused.
>>>> Chrome didn't support either of them until about 2 years ago. 
>>> They're added mainly because of http://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/  
>>> IIRC.  When neither is supported, I haven't had any complaint from 
>>> Chrome users.
>>>> Jungshik
>>>> 2012. 11. 3. 오전 7:31에 "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl>님
>>> 이 작성:
>>>> I joined the I18N WG for an hour or so at their F2F in TPAC to discuss
>>>> http://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/

>>>> We basically went through the document for a high-level overview of
>>>> what it attempts to do. We also concluded it is good enough to publish
>>>> as a FPWD, provided someone in the I18N WG has the time to do the
>>>> switch in style (from green to blue).
>>>> Based on feedback from Richard Ishida and Kawabata Taichi during that
>>>> meeting I filed these bugs:
>>>> * https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19816

>>>> * https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19817

>>>> If there was any other feedback during that session I failed to
>>>> capture I would appreciate if you could help me out. Issues with the
>>>> specification are best recorded in Bugzilla:

>>>> --
>>>> http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Sunday, 4 November 2012 23:31:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:33 UTC