Re: Locale/default encoding table

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> So, here you *confirm* what I said: The "Mozilla corpus", is only a 
> bunch of around 75 locales. Quite impressing, but still only 75 possible 
> ones. Readers of the spec will not know that by "all others" you 
> referred to that list.
> It simply isn't possible to say "all others", unless we know which one 
> "the others" are. I gave you one possible locale "os_RU", where win-1252 
> does not seem meaningful as a default.

I think it is a mistake to consider what is meaningful and reasonable when 
examining what actually happens. For instance, if a particular locale has 
been using browsers built for a similar but not identical locale, then it 
is likely that the content written by authors in that locale will actually 
depend on the default encoding of the legacy surrogate locale. There are a 
number of examples of this in the Mozilla localisations (Henri pointed to 
a few of them). So I would be quite surprised if the most useful encoding 
to list as the default wasn't actually Win1252, despite that being 
somewhat counter-intuitive.

> It may work for an individual user. But, it doesn't sound like someone 
> offering a localized browser product for Ossetian users inside Russia 
> would have much success that way.

It basically depends on what Ossetian users have been using before having 
a dedicated localised product.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 02:53:25 UTC