- From: alexelias <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 12:38:29 -0700
- To: whatwg/encoding <encoding@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 8 May 2017 19:39:03 UTC
Why would consistency with be `<meta>` be a goal here? I can't think of an argument for a concrete benefit of such consistency. `<meta>` is a header thing whereas the bulk of bytes revealing the encoding are going to be part of `<body>`. The only guaranteed-useful part of the header is `<title>`, but it may well end up near the end of the header, or be too short for reliable detection. So, even in theory, it makes sense to choose a different constant for encoding detection. I think the principled target for the constant should be "larger than typical header length". > Then in continues to run, and if it revises its guess during the parse, the page in re-navigated to with the newly-guessed encoding. This sounds complex and bug-prone, so I don't think we would be willing to introduce similar behavior in Chromium. I would much rather increase the constant than resort to this. > I guess we should gather telemetry to see how often this happens. Yes, I would be very interested in hearing the results of telemetry. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/whatwg/encoding/issues/102#issuecomment-299968814
Received on Monday, 8 May 2017 19:39:03 UTC