W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2012

Re: [whatwg] StringEncoding: Allowed encodings for TextEncoder

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:58:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei9MtLJkW5boc8bGH7Gc822GR65KvxH56LhtfYEz_0ZuQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>
I think the main reason would be if there are modern formats which use
UTF16 which we want to allow people to create documents in. I asked on
twitter for such formats and got some responses:

https://twitter.com/SickingJ/status/234060964058763264

/ Jonas

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:42:07 +0200, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/StringEncoding has been updated to restrict
>> the
>> supported encodings for encoding to UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-16BE.
>>
>> I'm tempted to take it further to just UTF-8 and see if anyone complains.
>
>
> I was going to suggest doing so. We've gone UTF-8-only for new features
> (workers, webvtt, appcache manifest, etc). The Encoding spec says "New
> content and formats must exclusively use the utf-8 encoding.". Is there a
> use case for utf-16/utf-16be?
>
> --
> Simon Pieters
> Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 16:59:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:44 UTC