- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:48:03 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Andrew Cunningham <andrewc@vicnet.net.au>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen On 09-10-12 09.42:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 07:14, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
[...]
>> • Otherwise, return an implementation-defined or user-specified
>> default character encoding, with the confidence tentative. Due to
>> its widespread use as a default in legacy content, windows-1252 is
>> recommended as a default in the absences of other information.
+1 Looks best so far, as it avoids naming any area (or myths about
clear name for an area).
+1 for including user-specified defaults in the algorithm.
> I think it would be useful to include a table showing the locales and
> their default encodings for the locales to which browsers
> traditionally ship with a non-Windows-1252 default.
A list of only of non-Windows-1252 defaults sounds as a "table of
the exceptions". Such a list should rather try to document all
legacy encoding locale defaults there are - or could be. It
probably should be defined by another spec, or a Wiki page.
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 11:48:40 UTC