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

As an individual, I guess my request to add support for an actual encoding that was introduced with a solid technical rationale at the time and that has been used in massive quantities, even though that was mostly before the rise of the web, will not be fulfilled. Similar requests from others are admittedly rare, but not nonexistent. Some of the examples you pointed out were actually new to me, so thank you for that.

So, against my better judgment, I'll contrast that to a hypothetical scenario: if I had been in the government of a large country, I could just have made up my own encoding over a decade after the invention of UTF-8 with absolutely no technical justification, then mandated its use, in which case you would likely have added it to the list of "legacy" encodings that must be supported by all browsers. Of course, any similarity between my hypothetical scenario and actual events is entirely coincidental... ;)

In short, although we disagree, I do understand where you're coming from. I just find it hard to look at a laundry list of encodings that must be supported, many of which have no legitimate raison d'être at all in my opinion, while IBM437 will not be. If UTF-8 had been the sole supported encoding I would likely just have accepted defeat, but now I simply can't shake the feeling that the decision was arbitrary.

-- 
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-619937238