- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:13:45 +0200
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:44 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron at dbaron.org> wrote: > On Monday 2011-12-19 17:17 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Leif Halvard Silli >> <xn--mlform-iua at xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: >> > I discovered that "UNICODE" is >> > used as alias for "UTF-16" in IE and Webkit. >> ... >> > Seemingly, this has not affected Firefox users too much. >> >> It surprises me greatly that Gecko doesn't treat "unicode" as an alias >> for "utf-16". > > Why? >From playing with IE, I thought it was known that "unicode" is an alias for "utf-16" and it had never occurred to me to check if that was true in Gecko. >?If it's not needed, why shouldn't WebKit and IE drop it? Needed is relative. So far, I haven't seen data about how much existing content there is out there that depends on this. It could be that some users somewhere have rejected Firefox or Opera for this and there just isn't enough of a feedback loop. Maybe it isn't needed, but it seems that from the WebKit or IE point of view, the potential upside from dropping this alias is about non-existent while there could be a downside. I'd expect it to be hard to get IE and WebKit to drop the alias. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 01:13:45 UTC