- From: Henri Sivonen <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 00:24:32 -0700
- To: whatwg/encoding <encoding@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 27 April 2020 07:24:44 UTC
> What would make the addition of IBM437 acceptable to you? Likely nothing. As far as I can tell, Firefox has [never supported IBM437](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=298436). Later other DOS encodings in the IBM8xy range were added for the OS/2 port. I suspect they were more about dealing with the system than with Web content. Firefox dropped the IBM8xy encodings other than IBM866 in Firefox 16 (patch landed on 2012-11-10, release on 2013-02-19). By then, Chrome already didn't support those encodings. Since then, there's been one [Thunderbird report](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1587813) about IBM437 and [two](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=846936) [Firefox](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1296306) reports about IBM850. While I understand that you care about this particular encoding, evidence suggests that as a matter of the big picture, support for legacy Web content doesn't (in serious quantity) require IBM437 to be supporte -- 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-619785364
Received on Monday, 27 April 2020 07:24:44 UTC