- From: Henri Sivonen <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:33:19 -0700
- To: whatwg/encoding <encoding@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <whatwg/encoding/issues/207/619988484@github.com>
> 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. Browsers used to add encodings without strong use cases. For example, ISO-8859-15 was always about political posturing and not about solving a problem that windows-1252 wasn't already solving. In general, some encodings is the ISO-8859 series came along just by being part of the series without being evaluated individually. The Encoding Standard looks arbitrary, because it tried to freeze the intersection of what major browsers supported: i.e. it's an intersection of semi-arbitrary decisions. In retrospect, by the time the Encoding Standard was written, we might have gotten away with dropping IBM866, ISO-8859-3, ISO-8859-10, ISO-8859-14, and ISO-8859-16, but actually investigating whether we could drop these is not worth the trouble. This still isn't a reason to add more. -- 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-619988484
Received on Monday, 27 April 2020 13:33:31 UTC