- From: Řistein E. Andersen <liszt@coq.no>
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:25:40 +0100
On 22 May 2008, at 12:40, Ian Hickson wrote: > Do you have input on the EUC-JP issue? I am now about to finish my analysis of CJK encodings (e-mail forthcoming), including EUC-JP. This encoding does not seem to be particularly problematic, however. Are you referring to a specific problem? > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, ?istein E. Andersen wrote: >> Note: Similarly, IE apparently handles CS-ISO-2022-JP as distinct >> from >> ISO-2022-JP. This is something to keep in mind when looking at >> multi-byte encodings. > > What should we say about this? The issue seems to be that IE's implementation of ISO-2022-JP is a large superset of what is actually specified. (This is the case for several other CJK encodings as well.) See forthcoming e-mail for an actual description of the extensions. >> (TC)VN5712-2 < (TC)VN5712-1 >> >> Opera[?] and Firefox seem to have implemented the superset only. > > Should we require this mapping? For reference: (TC)VN5712-3 < (TC)VN5712-2 = VSCII-2 = ISO IR 180 < (TC)VN5712-1 Only the complete set seems to be implemented (and only in Firefox), and MIME charset strings referring to one of the subsets do not seem to work at all, so no mappings are necessary. -- ?istein E. Andersen
Received on Saturday, 11 April 2009 04:25:40 UTC