- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 22:44:59 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On May 22, 2008, at 12:23, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > EUC-KR -> Windows-949 > > KS_C_5601-1987 -> Windows-949 > > FWIW, x-windows-949 would be more correct given the current IANA situation. Should I just changed the spec to strip leading "x-"s? That would deal with our Big5 problem too, as well as: > The list is missing [...] x-iso-8859-11 > After pondering the usefulness of conformance errors in this area, I'm > inclined to think that there should be no particular errors when in > coding name aliasing happens. This means that I would even suggest > removing the C1 range bytes as errors when ISO-8859-1 turns into > Windows-1252. My rationale is that the cost/benefit characteristics of > reporting theoretical wrongness in this area are unfavorable. See earlier mail today on this topic. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 15:44:59 UTC