[Bug 16768] Update HTML to make use of the Encoding Standard

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16768

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
           Assignee|dave.null@w3.org            |silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com

--- Comment #5 from Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If
you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of
this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would
like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would
like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please
add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and
text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this
document:   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html

Status: Accepted

Change Description:
https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/3d85bac87355240a433865ec56074a80c33a271d

Rationale: IANACHARSET does not match implementation - the WHATWG encoding
specification is a much better reference

Open Questions:

Is there a version of http://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/ published at the W3C?

Remaining questions of Ian in related bug
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17839#c1 :

> Do you flag people using bytes that aren't compatible between ISO-8859-1 and 
> Win1252 as a conformance error anywhere, or are we just saying ISO-8859-1 is 
> bogus and these are the new tables, end of story?
>
> I've left references to "ASCII-compatible character encoding" for now; is it
> not still plausible that people are using EBCDIC mainframes and implementing
> HTML parsers for them?
>
> The "utf-8 decode" and "decode" algorithms are too clever for HTML's use, so I
> just directly use the relevant decoder algorithms. "encode" doesn't seem to add
> anything useful vs "encoder", either.
>
>> (You do not know in advance which code points cannot be encoded.)
>
>Can you elaborate on this?"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 00:48:28 UTC