- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:29:17 -0500
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen at iki.fi> wrote: > Regarding your "(and 16)" remark, considering my personal happiness at > work, I'd prioritize the eradication of UTF-16 as an interchange > encoding much higher than eradicating ASCII-based non-UTF-8 encodings > that all major browsers support. I think suggesting a solution to the > encoding problem while implying that UTF-16 is not a problem isn't > particularly appropriate. :-) > UTF-16 is definitely terrible for interchange (it's terrible for internal use, too, but we're stuck with that), and I'm all for anything that prevents its proliferation. I don't think I'd call it a bigger problem, though, since it's comparatively (even vanishingly) rare, where untagged legacy encodings are a widespread problem that gets worse every day we can't think of a way to curtail it. I don't have any new ideas for doing that, either, though. I think in order to comply with the Support Existing Content design > principle (even if it unfortunately means that support is siloed by > locale) and in order to make plans that are game theoretically > reasonable (not taking steps that make users migrate to browsers that > haven't taken the steps), I think we shouldn't change the fallback > encodings from what the HTML5 spec says when it comes to loading > text/html or text/plain content into a browsing context. > And no browser vendor would ever do this, no matter what the spec says, since nobody's willing to break massive swaths of existing content. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 08:29:17 UTC