Re: [whatwg] Is EBCDIC support needed for not breaking the Web?

• From: Benjamin Smedberg <bsmedberg@mozilla.com>
• Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:27:21 -0400
• To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
• CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, whatwg List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, www-international@w3.org, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org
• Message-ID: <48434C79.7040703@mozilla.com>

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.

--BDS

Received on Monday, 2 June 2008 02:04:25 UTC