- 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
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 UTC