Re: [whatwg/encoding] Allow other encodings (#207)

> some browsers support it 
...
> Desktop: Chromium-based browsers on Linux

@inexorabletash, what is this about? Does Chromium allow building with system ICU such that there's no Chromium-side allow-list?

> This is because this encoding is very prevalent among text files originating from the early eighties to about the mid-nineties and sees some usage in HTML documents as well. Many users, including me, also use their browsers to view text files they find online

Do these text files declare IBM437? If not, how would viewing English text files that use the non-ASCII parts of IBM437 only for box drawing work in browsers that don't have a character encoding menu? (Presumably, an encoding detector would want to err on the side of the box drawing bytes being non-ASCII letters from windows-125x, since those cases are for more common on the Web.)

I understand that there is certain historical appeal to e.g. textfiles.com serving the original bytes instead of converting to UTF-8 on the server side. However, all files that I've encountered there that use the non-ASCII parts of IBM437 use parts that are the same in IBM866, so they'd work in browsers if declared as IBM866.

> Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_page_437#Character_set there's a good reason to never support that: https://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/#security-background.

FWIW, we already replaced the low half of IBM866 with ASCII. (I'm not advocating for extending the set of supported encodings. If we ever change the set of supported encodings, I'd rather drop IBM866 than add more DOS encodings.)

-- 
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/207#issuecomment-618213506