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

> That's only a step away from asking for all the DOS encodings to be added instead of just IBM437. That binary size impact adds up with very little practical benefit.

I don't think it is quite that bad, but I do understand your concerns. That's one reason I'm not asking you to add them all. Right now a single IBM* encoding is supported, so supporting a subset of them is not unprecedented. I'm only asking for the addition of a second one, so the scope of my request is very limited. Across all text files taken together (not just HTML), I'm pretty sure IBM437 is the most prevalent DOS-era encoding.

I'm not afraid of a slippery slope. Realistically speaking, someone might come along and ask for IBM850 and maybe even IBM00858 (which is just IBM850 with the dotless i replaced by the Euro sign), but I can't imagine anyone seriously requesting the addition of any more of them.

So in the very worst case, you'd end up supporting four IBM* encodings, but honestly I think it would stop at just IBM866 and IBM437.

-- 
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-619184955