- From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexey@feldgendler.ru>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:39:03 +0200
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:15:06 +0200, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen at iki.fi> wrote: > 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. On the other hand, declaring Windows-1252 as the default encoding is monoculturalism. For example, in Russia, whenever Windows-1252 is chosen, it is definitely a wrong choice. It's never used in Russia because it doesn't contain Cyrillic letters. A default of Windows-1251 or KOI8-R might be reasonable in Russia, though none of them is a 100% safe guess. This is to say that there shouldn't be any mandated fallback encoding. Whenever a fallback encoding is needed, it should be taken from the user preferences or vendor presets which are likely to reflect the most popular encoding in the area. -- Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru> [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 06:39:03 UTC