- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:15:06 +0300
On Jun 4, 2007, at 14:17, Alexey Feldgendler wrote: > Also, even for those encodings for which a single-byte encoding > like Windows-1252 can be a reasonable fallback, it's doesn't seem > wise to me to mandate the use of Windows-1252 (or any other fixed > encoding) as the fallback. Some software, especially in devices, > already exists that only supports one or several encodings, and > these are the most important ones in the local market (e.g. > Japanese in devices sold in Japan). I think it is perfectly reasonable to make support for UTF-8 and Windows-1252 part of UA conformance requirements. After all, a piece of software that doesn't support those two really has no business pretending to be a UA for the World Wide Web. Not supporting Windows-1252 based on "local market" arguments is serious walled- gardenism. UTF-32 as an encoding for interchange, on the other hand, is nothing but an academic time sink for implementors. I'm going to support UTF-32 when a decoder is available, but I'd like to know what a parser is to do when the decoder isn't available. (By default, you don't get a UTF-32 decoder with the JDK.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 06:15:06 UTC