W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-ig-zh@w3.org > April 2012

Re: 臺灣和香港Big5 HKSCS vs UAO分析和結論

From: Yuan Chao <yuanchao@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:23:12 +0800
Message-ID: <CAADKi7kc72o_ShoWJRKNQNz54C-TuRMLeww1LgdnKeq5=fze8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>, Chinese HTML Interest Group <public-html-ig-zh@w3.org>
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:

>> Unlike ISO-2022-JP which has a very clear states definition, Big5 has
>> no error handling at all. (Just recall that Kenny was asking about
>> this about a year ago on this ML.) A visible character is very useful
>> instead of a fullwidth space, which just hides things away.

> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/encoding/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#big5> defines the
> error handling. However, it can probably be improved, see
> <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16771>.
Wondering how this definition comes?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-ig-zh/2011Aug/0052.html
I didn't see any reply to Kenny's request since.

For people starts using big5 since the DOS era, one should be used to
the garbled characters due to conflicts with (ext.) ASCII control
codes and tables. This is the "feature" of big5. hahaha... Also a good
"error message".

> How U+FFFD is rendered appears to be a font issue, I presume you don't mean
> that random incorrect characters is preferable.
The current solution seems to take all PAU as error. I don't prefer it.

>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:05:22 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
>>>>>> 提供一點考古方向:有些的編碼看起來是 big5-2003[1]、、、、、囧
>>>>>> 6. http://domestic.mytour.com.tw/list.asp?id=721
>>>>>> hkscs: 不捨結束此行精采假期、踏上歸途<U+FFFD �>視情況休息<br>18:30~
>>>>>> uao:   不捨結束此行精采假期、踏上歸途<U+8FF3 迳>視情況休息<br>18:30~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 84B3 在 big5-2003 是 U+F0E0(PUA),在 Windows 上看起來是 U+2192(→
>>>>>> RIGHTWARDS ARROW),但是兩個字形(glyph)並不一樣。
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 有可能,不過<U+3001 IDEOGRAPHIC COMMA 、>或者<U+FF0C FULLWIDTH COMMA ,>好像更好。
>>>>
>>>> I would tend to "→" here. (as supply info, we don't use comma as
>>>> parentheses)

>>> It's mostly <http://www.wintan.com.tw/service_06_08.htm> that made me
>> Oh. For this example, it's even more obvious that "→" makes sense.
>> It tells you to look in to the menu bar for [證券帳務] menu item and
>> *then* click on [庫存查詢] sub-menu. A "、" makes no sense at all!

> In <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-ig-zh/2012Apr/0044.html>
> you said that "、" was very likely, but if you're sure it should be "→" then
> it looks like all 84B3 might be the same, which seems a lot saner.
That's before Kenny's "interpretation". Don't you agree "→" makes more
sense here? As I said, I'm neutral and support for the best.

>>>>>> 我不知道該說什麼才好了,感覺為 Big5-UAO 把 big5-2003 的東西加回去一些可
>>>>>> 以解決很大部份,另外,上面這些字都不是日文漢字,所以也不影響我對 Big5-
>> I tend to agree with Kenny's view here.
> One of you will have to explain exactly what should be done, how should
> Firefox's mappings be modified to make better sense?
I think you understand how community does things. We can try to bring
up this and call for people's help.

>>>>>> UAO 的要求 :p,有人知道這部份的編碼對應是在可以動手術的範圍還是不行?
>>>>> 按照上面的,用Big5-2003並不是很完美的。MozTW的映射好像不是完全可靠,所以我不知道該根據什麼去定義Big5-UAO。

>>>>> 問題的範圍畢竟是0.043%的臺灣網頁的幾個字符。現代的瀏覽器只有Firefox能顯示,而且他們的映射還造成別的問題……
>> Unfortunately it cause some problem for non-native Chinese readers. :)
> Certainly it's a problem for all readers of Chinese that random characters
> show up where they don't belong?
Emm... Here you think the current firefox solution is not perfect and
the needs in Taiwan is negligible so it's better to use big5-hkscs to
replace the big5 (seems to be CP950?)? I'm an experimental high energy
physicist. The best way to resolve a debating and validate a theory is
to do experiment and measure it. :) Maybe you can just implement it in
Opera and make a survey to see how both HK and Taiwan users appreciate
it?

>>>>> 在這種情況下,我覺得嘗試跟受影響的網站聯繫還是有希望。反正這是唯一的辦法能夠讓香港和國際的用戶也看得到。
Still as mentioned, HK users overwrite "big5-hkscs" as "big5". It's
their government's choice to create the inconvenience to "encourage"
people to move to unicode.

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=191245

It took quite long time for Yahoo! Taiwan to move to unicode. Pushing
big5-hkscs to replace big5 in w3c would have profound effect. I only
ask for not breaking my current usage. Though I'd be happy to help to
put the major variants of big5 to w3c. (it's very little info here
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/encoding/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#big5)

>> http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/chrome/discuss-chrome/m-rZuk5iAR4
>> A simple option for the browser to "not switch to big5 if big5hkscs is
>> selected" will do and it's a tunable option for Firefox. Maybe Opera
>> can implement this to gain some share? ;) (Opera's share is ~0.4% in
>> Taiwan and invisible in HK. ) This would make much more sense to me
>> than eliminating other big5 variants than big5hkscs.
>>
>> http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-TW-weekly-201201-201216-bar
>> http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-HK-weekly-201201-201216-bar
>
> We will of course implement whatever the spec eventually says, and my
> objective here is to make the spec mappings work well for real-world
> content. In Opera Big5 is currently subset of Big5-HKSCS, so adopting the
> suggested spec mapping can only improve things for us. Only Firefox has
> separate mappings in the sense that would make sense for the spec, both IE
> and Chrome use PUA mappings instead.


>
>
>>> If there are popular/important sites using Big5-UAO, I would really
>>> recommend asking them to either escape conflicting code points as &#1234;
>>> or
>>> to use UTF-8. That would fix the problem for all browsers immediately,
>>> instead of fixing it only for Taiwan-locale browsers in a few years.
>>
>> I don't think either is practical.
>> The same argument applies to HK sites too, right? Why don't HK sites
>> move to use UTF-8 as their government ask them to? Sites with the
>> abilities and visions have moved to UTF-8 already. While the remaining
>> ones have either difficulties or simple just don't want to do this.
>> Popular/important sites would be even less willing to as they have so
>> many users and legacies already.
>
>
> I certainly think it's worth trying, Kenny told me that ptt.cc has a UTF-8
> proxy of some sort, so they already have part of the infrastructure in
> place. Of course not all sites can be fixed, but given that Big5-UAO
> currently only works in Firefox or on a patched Windows XP I really doubt
> anyone *wants* to keep using it.
>
> The situation for Hong Kong is quite different, since the numbers favor
> making treating Big5 as Big5-HKSCS by default. Remember, 1.4% of .hk Big5
> pages depend on HKSCS, while only 0.13% of .tw sites depend on UAO.
>
> If a way can be found to fix sites using Big5-UAO without modification that
> would be great, but it's not looking very promising.
>
>
>> Unlike HK, Taiwan government has very loose control here and the big5
>> (a de facto) standard is the best example. The choice in Firefox is
>> based on the community discussion which would be different to other
>> browsers' business model. I personally don't stand for either. Just
>> express my personally needs and try to help with pointing some
>> directions.
>
>
> That is much appreciated!
>
>
>> To me, big5hkscs is an abandoned standard by HK government. Leaving
>> the difficulties and conflicts in big5/big5hkscs would be on purpose
>> to make people to switch to unicode. (I guess) The best solution to
>> the original problem you rose would be to implement an option of "not
>> switch to big5 if big5hkscs is selected even the site declares 'big5'
>> encoding".
>
>
> What should the Big5 mapping be? If it is like the conservative Big5 that
> Opera currently supports, that really won't help Taiwan sites and users at
> all. What Firefox does is also not that great, so it would have to be a new
> mapping that no browser has ever supported so far.
>
>
> --
> Philip Jägenstedt
> Core Developer
> Opera Software



-- 
Best regards,
Yuan Chao
Received on Sunday, 22 April 2012 00:24:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:50 UTC